ࡱ>   [ bjbj 3BΐΐeW% 8Ql5D"~~~CCCCCCCFqI`C~~~~~CC,,,~ C,~C,,$>?0DG#'>CD05D?I+I(?I?,~~~CC,~~~5D~~~~I~~~~~~~~~ :  Definition of Comprehensive Examinations: Depth (Challenging) Discursive Representations of Muslims in the West (Approved) Daniel Ahadi Student ID: 200013465 CMNS 895: Comprehensive Exam September 27, 2008 Supervisory Committee Members for Comprehensive Examinations Senior Supervisor: Dr. Catherine Murray, Professor, School of Communication, 911Թ Signature: ________________________ Date: ______________ Supervisor: Dr. Kirsten McAllister, Assistant Professor, School of Communication, 911Թ Signature: ________________________ Date: ______________ Additional Supervisory Committee Member Supervisor: Dr. Karim H. Karim, Associate Professor and Chair, School of Journalism and Communication, Carleton University. Depth Comprehensive Exam (Challenging) Discursive Representations of Muslims in the West Overview: Problematic My depth comprehensive is designed to correspond to my area of research: the Muslim diaspora. It is estimated that 25-30 million Muslims live outside their country of origin (geographically situated in the Middle East, North Africa, and parts of South Asian sub-continent and Indonesia) and that the majority of immigrants have settled, and continue to settle, in urban areas of Western Europe, North America and Australia. The patterns of migration have both historical and contemporary roots: during the nineteenth and half of the twentieth century almost all of the Muslim world had been under some form of colonial rule--whether under the direct rule of colonial powers, mandates, or spheres of interest-- and consequently the early Muslim immigrants in Europe (prior to the 1950s) came as colonial subjects to study or work. Some permanently settled in Europe, while others returned to their home countries to become part of the educated middle class. This was especially the case for French North African colonies. Following decolonization starting in the 1950s, new tensions started to emerge along ethnic, religious, and ideological lines in regions previously controlled and/or influenced by colonial powers (mainly the UK, France and later the United States): the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, civil war in Algeria, and the Islamic revolution in Iran and the subsequent war with Iraq, to name a few (Archick, Rollins, and Woehrel, 2005). These new conflicts gave rise to a mass-exodus from Muslim countries: nearly two million Algerians left for France, two to three million Kurds settled in Western Europe, and it is estimated that three to five million Iranians left for Canada, the US and Western Europe in the aftermath of the 1979 revolution. Settling in new countries brought with it a series of problems both for the receiving countries and the immigrants. Facing with the challenge of an influx of immigrants in the 1970s and 1980s (not only from Muslim countries) many countries in the West have adopted different immigrant management policies. Although models vary, in general terms most Western nations have implemented assimilative measures to deal with new immigrants. These policies are based on the notion that immigrants in order to be recognized as part of the larger society of their host countries must adopt a series of norms and values that are synonymous with the Wests definition of good citizenship. These policies reinforce the notion that the culture of Western societies are modern, secular, egalitarian and democratic, and the new non-modern, religious, and non-democratic immigrants must comply with its principles. The experiences of immigrants, however, are different. Coming to a new country with different cultural, religious, and socio-economic backgrounds creates a number of challenges. The assimilative measures of the immigrant receiving country have proven to be problematic for many: the egalitarian approach of distributing the same rights and freedom to every citizen has proven to be difficult to implement. Despite the centuries-long liberal democratic project in the West, marginalized groups continue to exist and operate in the periphery of society: the black population in the US, aboriginal people in North America and Australia, Arabs and Muslims of UK and France are few examples of communities who continue to feel alienated from the larger society despite the egalitarian doctrine of liberal democracy. Based on the failure of the Western nations to accommodate marginalized groups of society (e.g. women, ethnic minorities, and racialized groups) (Young, 1995) through political, economic and cultural provisions, as well as feelings of alienation and disenfranchisement, I have set out to investigate the underlying discursive practices according to which the West defines, on one hand good citizenship within the liberal democratic model of governance, and on the other, deviant or bad citizens and behaviors. There are three main areas of investigation. First I will focus on the historical formation of the colonial subject by reviewing literature from the cultural studies stream of communication research. What I set out to investigate are the underlying processes through which power, knowledge and discipline are constructed and enacted. Also I am interested in reviewing literature from the psychoanalytical tradition of the study of subaltern cultures and people. Foucaults work is central in the first section. His works is reflected through literature by Almond (2007), Bevir (1999), Clifford (2001), Lemke (2000), Lindstrom (1990), and Stoler (1995), as well as his own works (Foucault 1977, 1980 and 1991). The psychoanalytical stream is represented through authors such as Clarke (2003), Elliot (1992), Fanon (1967a, 1967b, and 1986), Khanna (2003), and Memmi (1965). Second I will look at the historical and contemporary attitudes and discursive representations of Islam in the Western world with particular focus on the mainstream media. Questions central to this section are (a) what are the historical roots of the construction of the Muslim other, and (b) how are these historical constructions manifested in social settings (e.g. through media representations)? Edward Saids text Orientalism is central to this section of the comprehensive. Other works by Karim (2000), Hourani (1993), Huntington (1993), Macdonald (2003) and Tibi (2008) are also important. Critics of Orientalism are also covered in this section. Third I will focus on the ways in which the Muslim communities (especially those in the West) have constructed their own counter-discursive narratives in order to make sense of the world and their lives as they see it. In other words how are meanings and identities among Muslims communities negotiated and constructed, considering the impacts of the media-perpetuated binary codes? The hijab (veiling) is one example of practice that is highly contested. As a strong visual signifier of Muslimness veiling has been associated with deviance in the Western media discourse. But at the same time, in liberal multicultural discourse, acceptance of veiling is an indicator of inclusiveness, and is used to judge social institutions (Modood, 2002, p. 124). In this comprehensive exam, I will focus on the question of the hijab both as a discursive practice as represented by the media in the West, and as a counter-discursive practice, focusing on feminist, mainly Muslim, scholarship on experiences of veiling. To summarize then, this comprehensive exam is broken up according to these general areas of inquiry: Problematizing a) the historical roots of the construction of the other within the framework of Western imagination of the self, and b) how such construction gave rise to discourses of subjugated subjects; How contemporary formations of binaries (Islam vs. West, Good vs. Bad Muslims) are influenced by colonial legacies, and how these legacies influence formations of Muslim identities? How do contemporary formations of Muslim identities in the diaspora form, and do these identities challenge the discursive media representations of Muslims in the West? I. The Historical Roots of the Racialized Other: From Foucault to Freud The literature reviewed for this section is divided into two groups: the first group uses Foucaults work to discuss the general formation of dominant discourses, regimes of truth, disciplinary measures as control mechanism and governmentality (Foucault, 1977, 1980 and 1991; and others applying Foucault: Clifford, 2001; Lemke, 2000; and Stoler, 1995); the second group discusses the formation of dominant discourses and the conception of the other in regards to colonial subjects (Dyer, 1997; Fanon, 1967a, 1967b, 1986; Gabriel, 1998; Gilroy, 2000; Goldberg, 1998; Green, 1984; Hall, 1994, 1996 and 1997; Maxwell, 1999; and Memmi, 1965). In the second section of this comprehensive a third group of literature is introduced. This literature discusses the formation of the Muslim other based on colonial discourse (Donatti, 2008; Ferreux, 2008; Karim, 2000; Kilani, 2008; Ali, 2008; and Said, 1978 and 1981). Todorov identifies 1492 as the birth of modernity (Venn and Featherstone, 2006). With the birth of European colonialism, Todorov argues, the modern form of reasoning took shape. A reasoning that regarded progress through the lenses of territorial expansion and domination. The successful colonization of the Americas was regarded as the triumph of modern European reasoning, and thus the concept of progress came to be regarded as the best reason (2006). The European civilization as a whole was juxtaposed against an external group of people (the colonized) and through that the Western notion of superiority of the self and inferiority of the other started to take shape. The foundations of modernity as the best way of reasoning and organizing life were further reinforced through the European Renaissance, the Enlightenment and the birth of the Westphalian nation-state (Foucault, 1991). The birth of the nation-state in late 1600s brought with it a new form of subjectivity: national citizenship, characterized by an allegiance to universal values assumed to be shared by all cultures, when it was in fact specific only to some (Habermas, 1995). These societies were governed by a regime of truth which consists of (1) discourses which it accepts and makes function as truth, and (2) institutions and socio-political structures whose function was to articulate and deploy these discourses in concrete forms to discipline the social body (Clifford, 2001, p 99; Foucault, 1980, pp. 130-133). Foucaults theories on power/knowledge, governmentality, discourse, discipline and sexuality are useful in addressing the concept of truth, knowledge and institutional facts. In his essay Governmentality (1991) and in his book Power/Knowledge (1980) Foucault discusses the mechanisms involved in efficiently governing a group of people through non-coercive measures: there is no need for arms, physical violence, material constraints, just a gaze (Foucault, 1980, p. 155). He argues that the governing apparatus of any given state operates not through forced measures, but rather through employing tactics to arrange things in such a way that through a certain number of means, such and such ends may be achieved (1991, p. 95). The instruments of government, Foucault argues, instead of being laws, come to be a range of multiform tactics. These tactics give way to the creation of discourses in society. Discourses are the practices through which people reproduce relationships of power--both subjugation and domination. They are complexes of signs and practices which organize social existence and social reproduction (Lindstrom, 1990, p. 20). It is through discourses and only through them that we experience reality. According to Foucault, the individual subject is not an autonomous agent, but rather a social construct: [Foucault] uncompromisingly announces the subject dead, and portrays the self as a construct of an episteme, disciplinary matrix, or some such, writes political scientist Mark Bevir (1999) in his article Foucault and Critique: Deploying Agency against Autonomy. Bevir argues that different people adopt different beliefs and perform different actions against the background of the same social structure (1999). Ian Almond (2007) offers yet another critique of Foucault in his book The New Orientalists. In a chapter called Foucaults Iran Almond criticizes Foucaults writings and interviews on the Iranian revolution. Almond argues that Foucault is falling victim for the same malaise he is criticizing: western rationality. For Foucault the Iranian revolution exemplified a moment in history when people put aside their individual goals to unite in their attempt to resist forms of governmentality. According to Almond this description of the revolution, was false and tainted with old occidental clichs about the Orient being honest, authentic, and collectivist (p. 25). Foucault perception of Iran was not based on what he had seen in the country, but rather based on what he had read about the Orient in other texts and seen in Tunisia (p. 41). He therefore did not see the complexities and the multiplicity of discourses in the Iranian society around the time of the revolution. Despite these criticisms, Foucault remains an important scholar in social sciences. His work has been extremely influential on studies of governmentality, surveillance, and colonialism. The question that I address for this comprehensive exam is, how do we situate Foucault in the study of the racial other? Foucault never wrote an effective history of racism as he had done for madness, prison, sexuality and governmentality. In order to situate Foucault in the studies of racism, I rely on the work of Ann Stoler (1995) and her book Race and the Education of Desire. Aside from a lecture on racism in the winter of 1976 at Collge de France, Foucaults theories on the emergence and continuation of racist discourse in the West (mainly Europe) are implicit in his writings, mainly in The History of Sexuality and Discipline and Punish (Stoler, 1995, p. 82). The disciplinary measures that Foucault writes about in these two texts are not limited to the individual body, but to the life of all human beings; in other words disciplinary measures have a globalized effect that seek to normalize certain behaviors, and vilify other (pp. 82-83). For Foucault, this process of normalization of certain discourses is the ultimate bourgeois project (p. 82). Subaltern groups in society (characterized by various anomalies) can then be defined and disciplinary measures, applied. This project protects the dominant groups and the discourses that support the social order. Discrimination along racial lines follows same logic: exclusion and/or elimination of racialized others from mainstream culture and society assure the survival of the dominant groups and discourses. By shunning certain groups (based on race, ethnicity, mental states, criminal background, sexual deviance, etc.) as subalterns, disciplinary measures, such as incarceration, exclusion, discrimination, medicalization, and capital punishment, become accepted measures to achieve normalization (p. 85). This comprehensive exam also engages with a body of literature that deals with the psychological roots of the creation of the other. Ann Stoler (1995), writing about sexuality, states, If Foucault has led us to the power of discourse, it is Freud that has turned us to the power of fantasy, to imagined terror, [and] to perceived assaults on the European self (p. 196). For Freud desire [and fear] is then the cause to the domination of the colonized man; for Foucault desire is an effect (p. 169). In other words, Foucaults contention was that desire was animated by the discourse of sexuality and productive forms of power (p. 177). Also, in Foucaults works Western conceptions of the self and the other are traced back to the European bourgeois self, and according to Stoler (1995) he shortcircuits the discursive and practical field of empire in which Western notions of the other were worked out for centuries and continue to be drawn (p. 194). Ranjana Khanna (2003) in her book Dark Continents: Psychoanalysis and Colonialism describes the connection between the two fields of psychoanalysis and colonial studies. Psychoanalysis is a technical and clinical field that investigates mental phenomenon, she writes in her introduction (p. 9). Colonialism is a series of historical events with political and economic repercussions for the world (Ibid.). To connect the two fields, she situates psychoanalysis as essentially a colonial discipline: In its full-fledged European form, colonialism manifested itself as imperialism: the imposition of one nation-state, itself coming into being, onto large areas of the world, the control of which was assumed along with mastery over their inhabitants for the purpose of economic gain and more global political power. But psychoanalysis could emerge only when Europes nations were entering modernity through their relationship with the colonies. The concept of the self and the event of being that emerge in psychoanalytic theory, even in its many variations that have come into existence in the post-Freudian period, developed in relation to the concept of the European nation-state. This factor makes psychoanalysis crucial for the understanding of postcoloniality and decolonization (p. 9-10). Another text on psychoanalysis that will be used in this comprehensive is Anthony Elliots Social Theory and Psychoanalysis in Transition: Self and Society from Freud to Kristeva (1992). In this book Elliot traces the three central themes in Freudian psychoanalysis: the nature of the unconscious, the formation selfhood, and the structure of the social order (p. 14). Elliot further argues that the dynamics of unconscious desires have a connection to the maintenance and reproduction of social power (p. 48). Psychoanalysis has enjoyed a somewhat uneasy position within social sciences. As Simon Clarke writes in the introduction to his book Sociology, Racism and Psychoanalysis (2003), psychoanalysis is often rejected because certain key concepts are difficult to demonstrate empirically (p. 1). With such position, we are unable to look at the psychological mechanisms that provide the impetus for people to hate each other. In other words, sociologist and anthropologists are good at answering how discrimination arises, but not why (p. 3). While race is a social construction, our fear of the other is psychologically manifested. In two chapters in particular, titled Freud, Racism and Psychoanalysis and Colonial Identity and Ethnic Hatred: Fanon, Lacan and Zizek, Clarke investigate the relevance of psychoanalysis to the study of race and the other. Following a Freaudian tradition the postcolonial theorists have argued that the construction of the colonial subject has been systematically achieved through measures that has not always involved use of force or material constraints. As Frantz Fanon writes in the Wretched of the Earth the major weapon of the colonizers was the imposition of their image of the colonized on the subjugated people (as cited in Taylor, 1994, p. 65). Through this process not only the Oriental other is assigned certain characteristics and identity traits, but also the occidental self construct her own identity by comparing herself with the Oriental other. As an indication of its own superiority, the self seeks to maintain a social distance from the other. The external other is then part of the discourse of difference which is considered as something the occidental self aspires to disassociate from (Hall, 1994, p. 392); what you are not, I am or what I am, you are not. In Whitewashed: Racialized Politics and the Media, John Gabriel (1998) argues that the knowledge about the racialized other is based on a process, which is characterized by the selection and omission of facts. He refers to this as white amnesia and suggests that the colonizers were selective in terms of their consumption and reiteration of historical facts and thus constructed their identity as the authority figure based on a series of events that were not representative of actual occurrences (p. 39). In Colonizer and the Colonized Albert Memmi (1965) discusses the systematic subjugation of the racial other by ascribing them with negative human traits such as laziness, irrationality, and irresponsible behavior (p. 82; Maxwell, 1999, p. 87). The colonized were then usually referred to as a collective rather than individuals, thus making the negative personality traits something collectively shared by the colonized subjects (Memmi, 1965, p. 85). This, according to Memmi, undermined their sense of individuality and personal freedom. In Practices of Looking Marita Sturken and Lisa Cartwright (2001) discuss the role of iconography in the subjugation of the colonized. According to Sturken et al. (2001), we live in a culture which the association of dark tones with evil still circulate (p. 24). Such association is dependent on social, historical, and cultural context. Discourses of criminality, law, legitimacy, knowledge, and power are communicated through images. Foucaults so called institutional gaze, is based on a set of predefined social norms is a product of the prevailing discourses in modern society (1977). The gaze then becomes an instrument through which subjects are disciplined and punished. An example of the institutional gaze would be the way an institution categorizes its subjects through systematic racial profiling and thus production of racial knowledge in order to control them. The most oppressive types of colonial images were those that provided Europeans with the opportunity to gaze, where the gaze refers to the imposition of desire and fear on an imaginary other (Maxwell, 1999, p. 13). Colonial photography, according to Maxwell, was in the business of confirming and reproducing the racial theories and stereotypes that assisted European colonialism (p. 9). In Classified Subjects David Green (1984) discusses the production of racial knowledge through the technique of photography and phrenology. Analyzing a series of pictures of colonial subjects from the late nineteenth and early twentieth century Green argues that the systematic classification of the racial other through anthropometric photography, was used to scientifically prove that the colonized subjects were racially inferior to their European masters. Green states that, at a time when physiological differences became the indices of moral, intellectual and cultural attributes the visibility of this truth captured within the photographic image served to strengthen the power which separated the observer from the observed (1984). The knowledge produced based on such stereotypical depictions of the colonized people supports the discourse of the racial other as a group of people that were less rational than their white masters. Attempts to understand the cultures and the traditions of the other were virtually nonexistent (Maxwell, 1999, p. 42). For instance, as Sturken et al. (2001) argue, an image of a native man dressed in a traditional outfit specific to his culture, would mean something very different in the context of [his] family or village than in the photographic album of a Western traveler (p. 103). The display of otherness through photography, literature, exhibitions, and other art forms provided the Europeans and North Americans with a shared set of myths about their common origins (Maxwell, 1999, p. 94). In his book White, Richard Dyer (1997) discusses the mythical common origin of the white race. His point of departure is the pre-modern world (going back to the white tribal folks of the Caucasus) and the Christian theology (Dyer uses references to the Bible as one of the major sources in which whiteness has been portrayed as the norm). According to Dyer throughout the history of the Western civilization (in both scientific and theological texts) whiteness has been associated with the quality of enduring hardship. The intellectual comprehension and the aesthetic refinement of the white people of Europe enabled them to not only control their own body and soul, but also extend that control to the non-whites. Enterprise as the central aspect of the white spirit became the focal point of the Western civilization in the quest for colonial domination of the world outside Europe. White people regarded themselves as the leaders of the human race because of their will power, far sightedness, [and] energy (p. 31). Whiteness in the Western imagination is constructed as the norm against which all other cultures and race are evaluated and scaled. In Racist Culture David Theo Goldberg (1993) discusses the emergence and evolution of Western racism in the context of modernity rather than the Christian tradition or the pre-modern world. His point of departure is modernity (sixteenth century and onward), by which he means the formation of the West as an ideological configuration according to which the nation-state took form. The formation of nation-states gave rise to politics of inclusion and exclusion (Introduction, mainly p. 3). Goldberg moves on to a discussion of liberalism as an ideology which subscribe to the principles of universal rights and subsequently insisting that race is an irrelevant category when discussing inclusion and exclusion: Racist expressions are generally reduced to personal prejudices of individuals, to irrational appeals to irrelevant categories, to distinctions that delimit universal liberal ideals (p. 7). This is not the case though. A racist culture exists within the liberal model of governance. Included in this racist culture are ideas, attitudes, norms, linguistic, literacy, and artistic expressions (including photography), architectural forms, media representation, practices and institutions (p. 8). These practices and institutions frame our understanding of the world and foster different systems through which meanings are produced and understood. II. The Muslims Other: The Colonial Discourse and the Persistence of it In the introduction of her book Exploring Media Discourse Myra Macdonald (2003) discusses the central role of images as visual representations of the world which frame out understanding of the world: visual signification forms part of a system of communicative practices intrinsic to discursive formation. [] Routine images of defendants being hustled, their heads bowed and hooded, from police van to court building signal culpability and shame (p. 4). Macdonald relates her discussion of media discourses to Foucauldian analyses of power/knowledge and discipline/punish. She argues that although Foucault did not write specifically about the media his approach to questions of power, knowledge and reality offer a valuable toolbox in the analysis of media representations. Macdonalds work is therefore important to this comprehensive exam and should be regarded as one of the key text around which questions should be constructed. Her work draws on two other key readings for this comprehensive exam. Edward Saids (1978) Orientalism and Karim H. Karims (2000) Islamic Peril: Media and Global Violence. This body of literature on the creation of Muslim other, mainly argue that the images of Islam are rooted in the centuries-old ideas about the religion (Karim, 2000, p. 55). Based on Edward Saids work Orientalism, Karim describes the evolution of Western images of Islam as a mechanism to dominate and restructure the Orient. The Orientalization of the Muslim regions of the world (predominantly North Africa and the Middle East) is a process through which the occident defined and continues to define its own identity. In more recent history (Post World War II) intellectuals, politicians, journalists and filmmakers have created an entire body of work in the West as part of the attempt to link Islamic terrorism to the hatred that Muslims have towards the Western civilization and culture (Chomsky, 2002, p. 63; Macdonald, 2003). This regime of truth (Foucault, 1980, pp. 130-133) has systematically produced an imaginary Muslim that is violent, anti-democratic and dogmatic. Colonial legacies, according to Karim, have a great impact on contemporary formations of attitudes towards the religion. The contemporary binary codes (Islam vs. West, and good vs. bad Muslims. Mamdani, 2004) that exist on Islam, especially since 9/11, in Western culture as fueled by mainstream media, are a continuation and reinforcement of colonial discourse on the religion. Despite his important contribution, Saids work has faced fierce criticism. A number of readings are included in this comprehensive exam to cover these criticism: Afray (1996), Ahmad (1992), Al-Azm (1981), Clifford (1988), Hourani (1979 and 1991), Kerr (1980), Owen (1979), Rodinson (1991), and Young (2004). A number of these critics accuse Said of essentializing the West, and subsequently falling victim to the same discourse which he himself critiques for presenting Islam as inferior (see for example Afray, 1996 and Ahmad, 1992): For example, by writing it is perhaps true that Islam has produced no very powerful visual aesthetic tradition, (Said, 1981) Said surrenders to the Orientalist discourse he criticizes. Other works have criticized Said for not granting credit to the Orientalists and their contributions to the study of the Middle East and Islam. (see for example Hourani 1979 and 1991; Al-Azm, 1981). The Indian Marxist literary scholar Ajiaz Ahmad criticizes Said for being un-Foucauldian: the discourse of Orientalism cannot stretch from the ancient Greeks to the current time, Ahmad argues, simply because Foucault rejected such long-term continuities of a particular discourse (1981). And finally Robert J.C. Young (2004) argues that Said really does not offer any alternative to orientalism: how should the orient be represented and conceptualized in the Western imagination? (p. 167). Despite these criticisms Saids work remains a canon of literary criticism, as well as the study of the colonized other. As Ann Stoler (1995) writes, Saids forceful lead ties the production of anthropological knowledge to colonial authority, and thereby traces the disciplinary regimes that have produced subjugated bodies and the sorts of identities created by them (p. 1). Aside from the critics of Orientalism, two additional writings are included in this comprehensive exam which are in dialogue with Saids Orientalism: The controversial essay Clash of Civilization? by Samuel P. Huntington (1993) and a recently published book by Muslim scholar Bassam Tibi (2008) Political Islam, World Politics and Europe. Huntingtons Clash thesis relies on historical facts to predict an eventual clash between the two civilizations of Christianity and Islam. Contrary to the anti-Orientalist (Said, 1978 and Karim, 2000), Huntington represents the stream of literature that regards the difference between Islam and the West as actually existing, and not as constructed or imagined. Tibi (2008), although distancing himself from the Huntingtonian Clash Thesis, argues that differences exist between Muslims and the West, and need to be addressed. On one hand Europe (his locus of analysis) need to accommodate Muslims so they can practice their faith, but at the same time Muslims must adopt to the European way of life: [Muslims] need to forge a pattern of Euro-Islam identity based on the core values of Europe, described as the idea of Europe endorsed by a liberal and reformed Islam. A polity for people of different religions can only be a secular one, and the idea of Europe is secular, not Christian. The value-conflict between Islamism and the idea of Europe is not a conflict between Islam and Christianity, nor is it a clash of civilization (p. 215). Tibi is a pragmatic scholar: he acknowledges the elephant in the room and offers possible remedies. In other words his middle of the road thesis agrees that differences exist and that they are not always the product of Oriental discourses. But, at the same time he assumes that a clash ( la Huntington) is nevertheless dubious because of the proximity between the core values of the two religions, which has been tainted by radical voices in Islam, i.e. Islamism. He concludes by advocating for an Europeanization of Islam, which entails a modernization, de-radicalization, and re-invention of the religion so that it fits the contours of life in the West. Tibis acknowledgment of the so-called elephant in the room (radical Islamic movements in the West) is praiseworthy: it is a nave trajectory to turn a blind eye on radical thoughts influenced by Islam. I do not, however, agree with Tibis conclusion. It is equally nave to suggest that Muslims fall short of the liberal expectations of the European society and thus fail to integrate into the mainstream culture. He suggests that Muslims should adopt the core values of Europe. But really, what are these core values and how have they come about? Europe today is more of a project or work in progress than a clearly defined cultural or geographical entity. With more countries joining the European Union, it has become more difficult to speak of a Europe with core values. What are these core values but discursive constructions and measures for social exclusions? To argue that there are core values that need to be adopted by the immigrant groups only perpetuates the problem rather than solving it. Radical Islamic preaching in Europe, which Tibi highlights in his writing, has come about as a result of pressures to adopt these imaginary core values (of secularism, liberalism and the distinctions between public and private spheres) (Abdel-Samad, 2006; Archick et al., 2005; Gney, 2007; Kfir, 2007; Modood, 2002 and 2006; and Mustafa, 2002). Muslims (and other immigrant groups) arrive in new societies expected to adopt the dominant norms of those societies (secularism, in particular, according to Modood, 2002, p. 126). Failure to adopt these so-called dominant norms on one hand gives rise to hostile attitudes toward Muslims, and on the other hand it perpetuates the problem of social exclusion, segregation (spatial and sociological), and disenfranchisement of Muslims (particularly Muslim youth) in Western countries. As a result of not being recognized as fully accepted members of society, a number of Muslim youth in the West turn to radicalized Islam as preached by extremist Muslim clerics (Abdel-Samad, 2006; Archick et al., 2005; Gney, 2007; and Mustafa, 2002). Militancy, in its Islamic garb, is but a form of social protest against the absence of genuine political participation. It is a symptom of a social crisis that has less to do with religion, per se, than with the failure of development models to produce social equity (Mustafa, 2002, p. 92). Abdel-Samed (2006) finds differences in the degree of radicalization between newcomers and those born in Germany. According to his ethnographic research the newcomers are more likely to subscribe to radical preaching of Islam than those Muslims who were born in Germany. Abdel-Samed attributes this to an even greater feeling of alienation among newcomers. But Tibis claim cannot be dismissed entirely. Hegemonic voices in the Muslim community exist, and they contribute to the sense of alienation particularly among youth. Isolated events of honor-killing among Muslim families in European countries, intolerance against homosexuality, and the older generations lack of understanding of problems facing Muslim youth in Western countries (relationships, sexuality, education, alcohol, drugs, and mental health) are examples of issues that adds to the sense of alienation and isolation (Kfir, 2007). Youth are left in a hybrid state of mind where in their homes they live within the tradition of Islam and their cultural ancestry whilst outside of their homes they face contemporary [Western] society with its pluralism and temptations (2007). Such state of hybridity (particularly experienced by the youth) is very much characteristic of Muslim experiences in the diaspora. Contrary to dominant narratives on Islam (as manifested in the Western mainstream news media, entertainment media, and other cultural and artistic expressions) the experiences of Muslims are manifold and one cannot speak of the Muslim community with commonly shared values, practices, and identity. This multiplicity of voices and experiences is explored in the final section of this comprehensive exam. III. Challenges to Colonial Narratives: On Diaspora and the hijab When I want to emphasize on the heterogeneity of the Islamic community in diaspora in academic conferences and in my writing, I make reference to the Muslim Gay Association of BC and its coordinator Imtiaz Popat. The concept of such organization is in sharp contrast to how Islam is imagined in the West. Similarly, within the mainstream Muslim community itself, homosexuality is met with overwhelming resistance. And yet, there are marginalized voices among Muslims in the West that call for such recognition and organization. The point is that despite the persistence and continuity of colonial and Oriental narratives that vilify Islam, the experiences of Muslims in the diaspora attest to a different reality; a reality that challenges these dominant narratives and seeks to negotiate new meanings of Islam, and religio-cultural belonging. These negotiations of meanings are manifested through different aspects and practices of lives of the Muslims. But in order to understand the underlying mechanisms and dynamics of the production of new meaning among Muslims in diaspora, some of the general texts on the nature and characteristics of diasporic identities need to be consulted. Two articles in particular have been influential in the studying of diasporic culture: James Cliffords (1994) Diasporas and William Safrans (1991) Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return. Diasporic subjectivities have the following characteristics according to Safran (1991): (1) they are dispersed from an original home centre; (2) they maintain a memory, vision or myth about their original homeland; (3) they believe they are not-- or perhaps cannot be-- fully accepted by their host country; (4) they see the ancestral home as a place of eventual return, when the time is right; (5) they are committed to the maintenance or restoration of this homeland; and (6) group consciousness and solidarity are defined by continuing relationship with the homeland. However, Clifford (1994) argues Safrans last three criteria--a strong attachment to and desire for return--do not encompass all diasporas: certainly part of the Jewish diaspora around the world and Black diaspora in the US do not feel a strong attachment to their native lands. Alliances between members of the diasporas are forged around other commonly shared experiences such as suffering of displacement, adaptation and resistance. The same can be said about the Muslim diaspora. Not all of the Muslims in the West see the host country as their temporary home. Majority are fighting to make a home for themselves in new countries. A detachment from the homeland however does not mean a detachment from Orientalized identity. In this regard, the Muslim diaspora in the West are in a constant battle to negotiate a place and a meaningful life by forging alliances along the lines of common experiences and shared values to offer alternative narratives to Orientalism. Heresiographers have identified over 72 branches of Islam (Rahnama, 2006, p. 31). Therefore, it would be safe to say that Muslims have different views and interpretation of Islamic scripts; some groups adhere to a more liberal interpretation of the scripts, while others are more conservative; some individuals are secular in their world view, while others are in favor of politicized Islam; some women are veiled head to toe, other women may not even wear a headscarf. According to Rahnama, Muslim identities in diaspora are dependent on the interplay between three forces: religious identity, original national identity, and new national identity (p. 33). One of the questions around which Muslims, Muslim women in particular, have forged these so called alliances to offer alternative narratives is the question of the hijab or veiling. The hijab has had significant attention in Western media. In accommodating multicultural societies veiling is regarded as a practice by which tolerance and inclusiveness is measured (Modood, 2002, p. 124). At the same time, the practice of veiling has been associated with deviant social behavior in Western mainstream media discourse. The small city of Hrouxville in Quebec adopted a series of municipal laws that prohibited the display of religious symbols, including the hijab. The controversy around Hrouxville reflected both of these discourses (i.e. the hijab as something deviant, and the hijab as visual signifier for accommodation and tolerance in the public realm). The practice of veiling also falls into the binary of good versus bad Muslims (Mamdani, 2004); those Muslim women who cover themselves according to Islamic tradition are deemed bad and those who choose to not cover themselves are considered secular and modern. But as the literature below will demonstrate, the discourses on the hijab are multiple and cannot be forced into these false binaries. Instead, veiling in among Muslim women is practiced based on religion, culture, familial tradition, and many other social indicators. But let us first overview the dominant discourse on the hijab in the West (i.e. the hijab as deviant) from a historical perspective, and then move on to the alternative or counter-hegemonic discourses on the practice of veiling. In the case of the colonial discourse on the hijab, the Euro-Christian gaze at Muslims, writes feminist scholar and anthropologist Fadwa El Guindi, has been a gaze of violence and distortion (1999, p. 23). Western missionaries and explorers of the colonial time projected an image of Muslim women as prisoners of a patriarchal culture, and treated as commodities. The veiled woman of the Muslim world embodied all the mischief of the Muslim culture (p. 37). Another colonial account, existing in parallel with the narrative of the caged Muslim woman, was a narrative characterized by desire rather than fear. El Guindin explains in her book that parallel to the depiction of Muslim women as caged animals, there existed a narrative based on these womens sexuality. The Orientalist author George Sandys is quoted in El Guindi describing Muslim women in the Sultans harem: [I]t is not lawful for anyone to bring ought in unto them with which they may commit the deeds of beastly uncleanness; so that if they have a will to eat cucumbers, gourds, or such like, they are sent in unto them sliced, to deprive them of the means of playing the wantons (Sandys, as quoted in El Guindin, 1999, p. 37). Canadian feminist scholar Haideh Moghissi (1999) offers a similar account of the colonial depiction of Muslims womens sexuality. In a book chapter called Oriental Sexuality Moghissi make note of La femme oriental, which in French Orientalist literature referred to an impassive and undemanding enslaved source of sexual pleasure who possessed an Oriental mystery which never failed to charm her master (pp. 14-15). Domestication of Muslim women was regarded as an act of violence and evidence for female enslavement, while in Europe female domesticity was deemed appropriate (p. 15). The iconography of the Muslim woman through popular media (news, films pictures, etc.) continues to have an enormous influence on the ways in which Muslims are understood. Most significantly the hijab has been associated with unfavorable (from a Western perspective) personality traits and cultural practices. The narratives constructed around the hijab, albeit based on misconceptions about its origin and function, dictate how societies in the West regard the religions treatment of women, and thus questioning the fundamental values of the religion itself. Despite the end of classic colonial times, Orientalist narratives on Islam dominate much of the contemporary discourses on the religion and the hijab. Building on these narratives of fear and desire, the contemporary Western society, through popular media, have revisited some of the colonial accounts of Muslim societies and created new narratives based on recent events and phenomena (terrorism in particular). While there could be numerous narratives on veiling, four narratives, all of which in my opinion are part of the dominant discourse on the hijab in the West today, are as follows. The hijab serves as a symbol for a fanatical and violent religion. This interpretation of veiling refers to discourses around terrorism and violence, perpetuated largely by the images seen in mainstream media of veiled women who carry guns or banners with religious or anti-Western/Israeli slogans. Women in these images are depicted as being hysterical, militant and extremely Muslim. Secondly, the hijab can serve as a symbol for female oppression. This narrative has, in recent history, predominantly been associated with the images of Taliban brutality (Macdonald, 2006). Imbedded in this narrative is the notion of the captivated Muslim woman who needs to be rescued. This liberating mission is still persistent among Western imperial feminist scholars (Jiwani, 2006, 184). Thirdly, the hijab signifies failure to integrate into the Western society and adapt to its dominant values. This narrative suggests that Muslim women in veil are incapable of embracing modern values of the Western cultures and have a dogmatic attachment to traditions (p. 184). This narrative of the deviant Muslim who fail to embrace modernism is discussed in Mahmood Mamdanis (2004) Good Muslim, Bad Muslim. In this book Mamdani argues that the post-September 11 discourse on Islam is dominated by the notion that there are two categories of Muslims: good Muslims, who are modern, secular, and Westernized, and bad Muslims, who are doctrinal, anti-modern, and virulent (p. 24). Finally the hijab has also been described as part of the ethnic experience in diasporic communities. This narrative regards the veiling as a cultural practice that needs to be dealt with within the private sphere and within the boundaries of the ethnic culture. Veiling is then depoliticized and becomes a non-issue (Mc Andrew, 2006, p. 155). What this narrative ignores is the struggles of Muslim women in schools and other public arenas where no or little accommodation is provided to meet their needs (such as the right to wear the hijab in school and at the workplace, praying rooms, gender segregated recreational facilities, halal food in schools, etc.). The classification of the hijab as a non-issue and its amputation from public discourse could result in further segregation of Muslims in the West. Muslim women in the diaspora have been particularly active in challenging Orientalist narratives by offering alternative narratives on the hijab. Despite popular belief, veiling is nowhere specifically recommended or even discussed in the Quran (Hoodfar, p. 6, 2003). In fact, it was not until the Ottoman Empire and the Safavids rule in Iran (Sixteenth century A.D.) that the veil emerged as a widespread symbol of status among Muslim ruling class and urban elites (p. 7). Throughout the centuries in Islamic countries there has been veiling, de-veiling, and re-veiling movements, in which women were always an integral part of (Cayer, 1996, p. 130). It is rather simplistic to only focus on the religious aspect of the hijab and not take into account social, economic, cultural and historical contexts. Feminist scholarships in recent years have covered a broad range of alternative discourses on Islamic female identity (Alvi, Hoodfar, and McDonough, 2003; Anderson Droogsma, 2007; Cayer, 1996; Jiwani, 2006; Khan, 2002; Macdonald, 2006; Todd, 1998). These narratives are based on interviews and focus groups conducted with Muslim women from different parts of the world. The range and topics of these conversations are remarkable; while all dealing with the issue of Muslim female identity, no generalization can be made from these conversations on the question of veiling. While some would categorize veiling as empowering for women, others would regard it as a means through which women create a personal and sacred space. Some practice veiling as part of a Muslim tradition, others as a part of their cultural self-expression. Some women regard veiling as a practice that liberates them from Western norms, ideals, and gazes, while others have a less favorable view and therefore would reject hjab, if it were not for external pressures. Reading List (Core readings in bold) I. The Historical Roots of the Racialized Other: From Foucault to Freud (10 core readings) Almond, Ian (2007). The new Orientalists: Postmodern representations of Islam from Foucault to Boudrillard. London: I.B. Tauris. Bevir, Mark (1999). Foucault and critique: Deploying agency against autonomy. Political Theory, 27, 65-84. Clarke, Simon (2003). Social Theory, Psychoanalysis and Racism. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave MacMillan. Clifford, Michael (2001). Political genealogy after Foucault: Savage Identities. New York: Routledge. Dyer, Richard (1997). Dyer, R. (2002). White (Introduction). London: Routledge. Elliot, Anthony (1992). Social Theory and Psychoanalysis in Transition: Self and Society from Freud to Kristeva. Oxford: Blackwell. Fanon, Frantz (1967a). Toward the African revolution. New York: Grove Press. Fanon, Frantz (1967b). The wretched of the earth. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Fanon, Frantz (1986). Black skin, white masks. London: Pluto Press. Foucault, Michel (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Vintage Books. Foucault, Michel (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977. Brighton, UK: Harvester Press. Foucault, Michel (1991). Governmentality. In Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon and Peter Miller (Eds), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, (pp. 87-104). London, UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Gabriel, John (1998). Whitewash: Racialised politics and the media. Florence, KY: Routledge. Gilroy, Paul (2000). Against race: Imagining political culture beyond the color line. Cambridge, Mass: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Goldberg, David Theo (1993). Racist Culture. Oxford: Blackwell. Green, David (1984). Classified subjects. Ten, 8(14), 30-37. Habermas, Jurgen (1995). Citizenship and national identity: Some reflections on the future of Europe. In O. Dailbour and M. R. Ishay (Eds.), The nationalism reader. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press. Hall, Stuart (1996). The West and the rest: Discourse and power. In Stuart Hall, David Held, Don Hubert and Kenneth Thompson (Eds.), Modernity: An introduction to modern societies (pp. 184-228). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers. Hall, Stuart (1997). The spectacle of the other. In Stuart Hall (Ed.), Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices, (pp. 223-290). London, UK: Sage Publications. Khanna, Ranjana (2003). Dark Continents: Psychoanalysis and Colonialism. Durham: Duke University Press. Lemke, Thomas (2000). Foucault, governmentality, and critique. Paper presented at the Rethinking Marxism Conference, University of Amherst, MA, September 21-24, 2000. Later published as: Lemke, Thomas (2001). The birth of bio-politics--Michel Foucaults lecture at the College de France on neo-liberal governmentality. Economy and Society, 19 (1), 1-31. Lindstrom, Lamont (1990). Knowledge and Power in South Pacific Society. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. Maxwell, Anne (1999). Colonial photography and exhibitions: representations of the native and the making of European identities (Introduction, plus chapters 2, 3 and 4). London, UK: Leicester University Press. Memmi, Albert (1965). The colonizer and the colonized. New York: Orion Press. Stoler, Ann Laura (1995). Race and the education of desire: Foucaults History of Sexuality and the colonial order of things. Durham; London: Duke University Press. Sturken, Marita and Cartwright, Lisa (2001). Chapter 3: Spectatorship, Power, and Knowledge. In Practices of looking: An introduction to visual culture. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Venn, Couze and Featherstone, Mike (2006). Modernity. Theory, Culture and Society, 23 (2-3), 457-476. Young, I. M. (1995). Polity and group difference: A critique of the ideal of universal citizenship. In R. Beiner, (Ed.), Theorizing citizenship. Albany, N.Y., State University of New York.  II. The Muslims Other: The Colonial Discourse and the Persistence of it (15 core readings) Abdel-Samad, Hamed (2006). Alienation and radicalization: Young Muslims in Germany. In Gerdien Jonker and Valrie Amiraux (Eds.), Politics of visibility: Young Muslims in European public spaces. Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript Verlag. Afary, Janet (1996). The Iranian constitutional revolution, 1906-1911: Grassroots democracy, social democracy, and the origins of feminism. New York: Columbia University Press. Ahmad, Ajiaz (1992). Orientalism and after: Ambivalence and metropolitan location in the work of Edward Said. In In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures. London: Verso. Al Azm, Sadik Jalal (1981). Orientalism and Orientalism in reverse. Khamsin, 8, 5-26. Ali, Haidar Ibrahim (2008). The others image: The sociology of difference. In Tahar Labib (Ed), Imagining the Arab other: How Arabs and non-Arabs view each other. London, UK: I.B. Tauris. Archick, Kristin, Rollins, John, and Woehrel, Steven (2005). Islamist extremism in Europe. Congressional Research Service Report for Congress. Retrieved on August 7 from http://www.stormingmedia.us/70/7084/A708444.html. Clifford, James (1988). On Orientalism. In The Prediciment of culture: Twentieth century ethnography, literature, and art (pp. 255-276). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Donatti, Pierre Paolo (2008). The other, the self and the idea of citizenship. In Tahar Labib (Ed), Imagining the Arab other: How Arabs and non-Arabs view each other. London, UK: I.B. Tauris. Ferreux, Jean (2008). The other as an historical invention. In Tahar Labib (Ed), Imagining the Arab other: How Arabs and non-Arabs view each other. London, UK: I.B. Tauris. Gney, lk (2007). Multiculturalism and its legacies: Identity construction among British Asian Muslim youth. Essex Graduate Journal of Sociology, 7(1). Retrieved on August 7 from http://www.sx.ac.uk/sociology/postgraduates/graduate_journal_vol7.shtm Hourani, Albert (1979). Orientalism. New York Review of Books, March 8, 29-30. Hourani, Albert (1991). Islam in European thought. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Pres. Huntington, S. P. (1993). The clash of civilizations? Foreign Affairs, 72 (3), 22-49. Karim, Karim H. (1993). Reconstructing the multicultural community in Canada: Discursive strategies of inclusion and exclusion. International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society, 7 (2), 189-207. Karim, Karim H. (2000). Islamic Peril: Media and global violence. Montreal: Black Rose Books. Kerr, M. H. (1980). Review of Orientalism. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 12 (4), 544-547. Kfir, Isaac (2007). Islamic radicalism in Britain. Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International Relations, 6 (3 and 4), 100-120. Kilani, Munzer a. (2008). Orientalism and Occidentalism: Invention of the other in anthropological discourse. In Tahar Labib (Ed), Imagining the Arab other: How Arabs and non-Arabs view each other. London, UK: I.B. Tauris. Macdonald, Myra (2003). Exploring media discourse. London: Arnold. Mamdani, M. (2004). Good Muslim, bad Muslim. New York: Pantheon Books. Modood, Tariq (2002). The place of Muslims in British secular multiculturalism. In Nezar AlSayyad and Manuel Castells (Eds.), Muslim Europe or Euro-Islam: Politics, culture, and citizenship in the age of globalization (pp. 113-130). Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. Modood, Tariq (2006). British Muslims and the politics of multiculturalism. In Tariq Modood, Anna Triandafyllidou, and Ricard Zapata-Barrero (Eds.), Multiculturalism, Muslims and Citizenship (pp. 37-56). Oxford: Routledge. Mustafa, Hala (2002). Islam and the West in an era of globalization: Clash of civilization or coexistence? In Nezar AlSayyad and Manuel Castells (Eds.), Muslim Europe or Euro-Islam: Politics , culture, and citizenship in the age of globalization (pp. 91-112). Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. Owen, Roger (1979). The mysterious Orient. Monthly Review, 31, 58-63. Rodinson, Maxim (1991). Europe and the mystique of Islam. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Said, Edward W. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books. Said, Edward W. (1981). Covering Islam: How the media and the experts determine how we see the rest of the world. New York: Random House. Tibi, Bassam (2008). Political Islam, world politics and Europe: Democratic peace and Euro-Islam versus global jihad. London: Routledge. Young, Robert J. C. (2004). White mythologies: Writing history and the West. London, UK: Routledge.  III. Challenges to Colonial Narratives: On Diaspora and the hijab (8 core readings) Alvi, S.S., Hoodfar, H., and McDonough, S. (2003). The Muslim Veil in North America: Issues and debates. Toronto: Womens Press. Anderson Droogsma, R. (2007). Redefining hijab: American Muslim Womens Standpoints in Veiling. Journal of applied communication Research, 35 (3), 294-319. Cayer, C. G. (1996). Hijab, narratives and the production of gender among second generation, Indo-Pakistani, Muslim women in Greater Toronto. Dissertation, York University, North York. Clifford, James (1994). Diasporas. Cultural Anthropology, 9(3), 302-338. El Giundi, F. (1999). Veil: Modesty, privacy and resistance. Oxford: Berg. Hall, Stuart (1994). Cultural identity and diaspora. In P. Willlimas and L. Chrisman (Eds.), Colonial discourses and post-colonial theory: A reader (pp. 392-403). New York: Columbia University Press. Hoodfar, H. (2003). More than clothing: Veiling as an adaptive strategy. In Sajida S. Alvi, Homa Hodafar, and Sheila McDonough (Eds.), The Muslim Veil in North America: Issues and debates (pp. 3-40). Toronto: Womens Press. Jiwani, Y. (2006). Discourses of denial: Mediation of race, gender, and violence. Vancouver, B.C.: UBC Press. Khan, S. (2002). Aversion and desire: Negotiating Muslim female identity in the Diaspora. Toronto: Womens Press. McAndrew, M. (2006). The hijab controversies in Western public schools: Contrasting conceptions of ethnicity and of ethnic relations. In Haideh Moghissi (Ed.), Muslim Diaspora: Gender, culture and identity (pp. 153-166). London: Routledge. Macdonald, Myra (2006). Muslim women and the veil: Problems of image and voice in media representations. Feminist Media Studies, 6 (1), 7-23. Moghissi, H. (1999). Feminism and Islamic fundamentalism: The limits of postmodern analysis. London, U.K.: Zed Books. Rahnama, S. (2006). Islam in diaspora and challenges to multiculturalism. In Haideh Moghissi (Ed.), Muslim Diaspora: Gender, culture and identity (pp. 23-38). London: Routledge. Safran, William (1991). Diasporas in modern societies: Myths of homeland and return. Diaspora, 1(1), 83-99. Todd, S. (1998). Veiling the other, unveiling our selves: Reading media images of the hijab psychoanalytically to move beyond tolerance. Canadian Journal of Education, 23(4), pp. 438-451.  Miscellaneous Chomsky, N. (2002). 11/9 (Margaret Eklf, Ulf Gyllenhak and Tor Wennerberg, Trans.). Stockholm, Sweden: Ordfront Frlag Taylor, Charles (1994). The politics of recognition. In Amy Gutmann (Ed.), Multiculturalism: Examining the politics of recognition (pp. 25-73). Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.  No accurate number can be established. Tauch, Bischof, Kastrun, and Mueller (2007) estimate that in 2002 there were approximately 15-20 million (conservative estimate) Muslims living in the EU-25 countries. It is estimated that about 6 million Muslims live in the US (various sources) and close to 600.000 live in Canada (2001 Census). No data available on religious belonging from the 2006 Census.  I use to the term religio-cultural to signify both the cultural and religious aspects of Islam.  Referring to food that has been prepared according to Islamic dietary rules and traditions.     PAGE  PAGE 2 23stvw 2 p q r   $ * ? ο޷ާꧠ}rgrgrb}rgr h.5h~xhCJaJh~xhCJaJh.CJaJh~xh5h~xhNm5CJaJ h~xh h~xh h~xh 5h~xh~x5h~xh5h~xh+CJ OJQJaJ h~xh+5CJ OJQJaJ h~xh 5CJaJh~xh 5CJaJhG5CJaJ"23`tuvgd $ & F a$gd+gd$a$gd   p q r    @ A B C k l   B C gd $ & F a$gd $a$gd 0^`0gd `gdgd ? @ A C l x  A C D Z h q r K !"3kִuj_h~xh~pxOJQJh~xh()+9Xj{ꑆ{p{e{h~xh!OJQJh~xhuDOJQJh~xh/JOJQJh~xh58OJQJh~xh bOJQJh~xh`OJQJh~xhFOJQJh~xh 5OJQJh~xhHrOJQJh~xhoOOJQJh~xh( OJQJh~xhOJQJh~xh OJQJh~xh_OJQJ'YZ`Rr  = !!M"i"m"n"s""##(#)#߼߼ǰߥwlaVh~xhCOJQJh~xh8OJQJh~xh`OJQJh~xhAXOJQJh~xh2m6OJQJh~xhu`6OJQJh~xhu`OJQJh~xh2mOJQJh~xh_K6OJQJh~xh_KOJQJh~xh 6OJQJh~xh 5OJQJh~xh OJQJh~xh bOJQJh~xh'6OJQJ)#c#q#w##########$$!$$$$$%%&&&&6&>&x&&&&&&' '''1'_'y'z'}'ɲɲɦɦɛɦɦɐɦɦɦymh~xhUT5OJQJh~xhe^5OJQJh~xhz8OJQJh~xh;OJQJh~xhLOJQJh~xh 5OJQJh~xh 1OJQJh~xh 6OJQJh~xh OJQJh~xh`OJQJh~xhWVOJQJh~xhuOJQJh~xhqOJQJ*}'''''' (>(J*U*Z*^*****Y+x+~+//0000U1d1f1u1w11111#2324445ƻưƤƙƤƤƍƤƤƂwlh~xhF OJQJh~xhgOJQJh~xh'OJQJh~xhg6OJQJh~xhg3OJQJh~xh 6OJQJh~xhaOJQJh~xhNOJQJh~xh OJQJh~xh;KOJQJh~xhUTOJQJh~xha5OJQJh~xh 5OJQJ'5 6 6 6-74778%8[8p8q8=9v97:9:u:v:{::::_;<<<<<<<<ɾ{{{pepYNh~xhUOJQJh~xhU6OJQJh~xhOJQJh~xh*]2OJQJh~xh+]<OJQJh~xhUFOJQJh~xhtOJQJh~xh/OJQJh~xh}OJQJh~xh*D6OJQJh~xh*DOJQJh~xhuDOJQJh~xhn9eOJQJh~xh/OJQJh~xhgOJQJh~xhraOJQJ<<<<<<<<<*=W=]=== >/>?!?%?:?P?Q?R?S?&@*@@@6AMANAdAlAmAAAAAAA BB*B,BɽɽɽɽɽɽɲɲɧɧɑɆ{pph~xhyyOJQJh~xhS'OJQJh~xh?OJQJh~xh8;OJQJh~xh">OJQJh~xh7OJQJh~xhnOJQJh~xh 6OJQJh~xh OJQJh~xh>x OJQJh~xh8OJQJh~xhF OJQJh~xhraOJQJ+,BFB~BBBBCCCCCCCCCD-D/D@DADbDfDoDDEEE2E겧{p{pepZp{Oh~xhlHOJQJh~xhQOJQJh~xh jyOJQJh~xhcXOJQJh~xhY7OJQJh~xh'OJQJh~xhOJQJh~xhiOJQJh~xhVaOJQJh~xh^WOJQJh~xhqOJQJh~xhyyOJQJh~xh 6OJQJh~xhG`OJQJh~xh OJQJh~xh:@OJQJ<CoGdIeILLNQUYdnno $da$gd $d`a$gdO,$d`a$gd  & F 0^`0gdUT & F 0d^`0gd=v  & F gdUT & F dgd# & F dgd 2E=EEEEEEE$F-F.FmGnGpGGGGGHHH!H*HuHHHIdIɾ{peZOh~xh'3OJQJh~xhNOJQJh~xhnnOJQJh~xh58OJQJh~xhOJQJh~xh\*oOJQJh~xh'OJQJh~xh26OJQJh~xh2OJQJh~xh@OJQJh~xh+(OJQJh~xhgOJQJh~xhZ?OJQJh~xhO,OJQJh~xhlHOJQJh~xhe)OJQJdIeIfII)J@JMJJ"KK LLLLLLLLLLöuhZLA6h~xhOJQJh~xh@OJQJh~xh+(6CJOJQJh~xh'36CJOJQJh~xh'3CJOJQJh~xhUTCJOJQJh~xh6 h~xh> h~xhfz h~xh8 h~xh h~xh` h~xh h~xhJ h~xha;6 h~xh5 h~xhIh~xh 6 h~xhu` h~xh h._OJPJQJ\nHtHh._h._PJ\nHtHh._PJ\nHtH$ϩE15;26<NRXctJOCGLpuz37=EK䱹䱹䱹䱹jh~xh 0J6Uh~xh 6 h~xh h~xhP` h~xh %? h~xh-z h~xh~h~xhr6 h~xhu` h~xhr h~xhnm h~xh/@&*+1 bg)Eklɾܗ}}ukuu}}h~xh4z56h~xh4z5h~xh4z6 h~xh4zh~xh OJQJh~xh4z5CJOJQJaJh~xh4z5OJQJh~xh*OJQJh~xh4zOJQJh~xh0J5OJQJ h~xhL h~xh0J h~xh.G]v N3Jx+HXm9Q|}15d3`vMn.%BUh~xh4z0J56h~xh4z0J5h~xh4z0Jh~xh4z6h~xh4z56h~xh4z5 h~xh4zHFGno34*+mn|}cd$0^`0a$gd4z$a$gd4z 0^`0gd4z_`67./UVt$0^`0a$gd*$a$gdmy5$0^`0a$gd4z 0^`0gd4z$a$gd4zU`as8 y-efgh)zGl>Y[οh~xh4z56h~xh4z6 h~xh4z h~xh*h~xh*5CJaJh~xh4z5CJaJh~xh4z5h~xhmy5PJaJnHtH%jh~xhmy5PJUaJnHtHh~xh4z6PJaJnHtHh~xh4zPJaJnHtH2tu`agh()%&gd4z$a$gd4z 0^`0gd4zopabopPQyz%&ef 0^`0gd4z$a$gd4z.^ox.G<o/PQGz&>Ke~h}h~xhmy55%jh~xhmy5PJUaJnHtH h~xh*"h~xh*56PJaJnHtHh~xh*5PJaJnHtHh~xh4z6B*phh~xh4zB*phh~xh4z6h~xh4z56 h~xh4zh~xh4z5/f|};<[\bcxy  & F gd4zgd4z$a$gd4z$0^`0a$gd* 0^`0gd4z#():<oIq;Rbcy D5Zm> .7ǽϵϵϩϵǽǽϵϵǽǽNjzrm h.5h.h.5!h.h.56PJ\nHtHh.h.5PJ\nHtHh~xh4z56OJQJh~xh4z5OJQJh~xh4z6h~xh4z56h~xh4z5 h~xh4z h~xhph~xhp6h~xh4z56CJaJh~xh4z5CJaJ*yYZ=>./67YZ-.d$0^`0a$gd.gd4z 0^`0gd4z()AKZ.BF)cdefg[\]^gk漵yyyyjhxUhxh]khn)E6CJh]khn)ECJh{hn)ECJ hn)ECJhn)Ejhn)E0JU h9h0J h9h4zh~xhmy55%j8h~xhmy5PJUaJnHtHh~xh4z6 h~xh4zh~xh4z56h~xh4z5,de\h]hgd &`#$gdNmgd $da$gd0J h9h0Jhxh0J mHnHuhn)E hn)E0J jhn)E0J U1 0:pNm/ =!"#$% Dd<P  3 3"((Dd<P  3 3"((Dd<P  3 3"((^# 666666666vvvvvvvvv666666>6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666hH6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666662 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~_HmH nH sH tH @`@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA`D Default Paragraph FontRiR  Table Normal4 l4a (k (No List :@: 1 Footnote TextaJNON 1 Note Level 1$ & F@& OJQJaJNN 1 Note Level 2$ & F@& OJQJaJN"N 1 Note Level 3$ & F@& OJQJaJN2N 1 Note Level 4$ & F@& OJQJaJNBN 1 Note Level 5$ & F@& OJQJaJNRN 1 Note Level 6$ & F@& OJQJaJNbN 1 Note Level 7$ & F@& OJQJaJNrN 1 Note Level 8$ & F@& OJQJaJNN 1 Note Level 9$ & F@& OJQJaJ@&@@ 1Footnote ReferenceH*8B@8 L Body Text$a$aJ0U0 m: Hyperlink>*B*.X@. m:Emphasis6]00 ^ ct-with-fmlt*W@* ^ Strong5\4@4 qzHeader  !.)@. qz Page Number4 4 "Yw0Footer ! H$6!6 !Yw0 Footer CharCJaJPK![Content_Types].xmlj0Eжr(΢Iw},-j4 wP-t#bΙ{UTU^hd}㨫)*1P' ^W0)T9<l#$yi};~@(Hu* Dנz/0ǰ $ X3aZ,D0j~3߶b~i>3\`?/[G\!-Rk.sԻ..a濭?PK!֧6 _rels/.relsj0 }Q%v/C/}(h"O = C?hv=Ʌ%[xp{۵_Pѣ<1H0ORBdJE4b$q_6LR7`0̞O,En7Lib/SeеPK!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xml M @}w7c(EbˮCAǠҟ7՛K Y, e.|,H,lxɴIsQ}#Ր ֵ+!,^$j=GW)E+& 8PK!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlYOo6w toc'vuر-MniP@I}úama[إ4:lЯGRX^6؊>$ !)O^rC$y@/yH*񄴽)޵߻UDb`}"qۋJחX^)I`nEp)liV[]1M<OP6r=zgbIguSebORD۫qu gZo~ٺlAplxpT0+[}`jzAV2Fi@qv֬5\|ʜ̭NleXdsjcs7f W+Ն7`g ȘJj|h(KD- dXiJ؇(x$( :;˹! I_TS 1?E??ZBΪmU/?~xY'y5g&΋/ɋ>GMGeD3Vq%'#q$8K)fw9:ĵ x}rxwr:\TZaG*y8IjbRc|XŻǿI u3KGnD1NIBs RuK>V.EL+M2#'fi ~V vl{u8zH *:(W☕ ~JTe\O*tHGHY}KNP*ݾ˦TѼ9/#A7qZ$*c?qUnwN%Oi4 =3ڗP 1Pm \\9Mؓ2aD];Yt\[x]}Wr|]g- eW )6-rCSj id DЇAΜIqbJ#x꺃 6k#ASh&ʌt(Q%p%m&]caSl=X\P1Mh9MVdDAaVB[݈fJíP|8 քAV^f Hn- "d>znNJ ة>b&2vKyϼD:,AGm\nziÙ.uχYC6OMf3or$5NHT[XF64T,ќM0E)`#5XY`פ;%1U٥m;R>QD DcpU'&LE/pm%]8firS4d 7y\`JnίI R3U~7+׸#m qBiDi*L69mY&iHE=(K&N!V.KeLDĕ{D vEꦚdeNƟe(MN9ߜR6&3(a/DUz<{ˊYȳV)9Z[4^n5!J?Q3eBoCM m<.vpIYfZY_p[=al-Y}Nc͙ŋ4vfavl'SA8|*u{-ߟ0%M07%<ҍPK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 +_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] VYB $$$$$'? k)#}'5<,B2EdILP}id˥ϩU|C <oYtfyd}~  '!!8@0(  B S  ?,1ou8>KPY`mr! !!:"?""# ##%#+#Y#`###&&(/-///11r4455g6n6<7B73<9<>>>>p?w?x?~?SDbD1E9EwI|IIIIJOOrQwQQQQQQRtR{R[ [i)ikk#)݄"'/6Յ'-&+3:!*ǐ8>?ّ6<HP/6؝ߝ.3DI 9Drw9@5:6;RWlqu{QX "(msũMUJOGLtyio)07<EJ޸PWлջ+0#+38@FbfEO.;'1U_ +0#%,7</68>{W]af(3 #glmrho &)0hmns&-#.ptfklq!bhpvZ^>#(<@HO\aqvflyZ`>FW\7>QV\enxe  $k$8:F:JKRRThhkkpp\qkq/t2tOwUwxJf}Y\pq0:cxm>R7JKke^33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333de#|/[U*DQ!k29x_Yd_Jf9f@\vz ^`OJQJo( 8^8`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o  p^ `OJQJo(  @ ^ `OJQJo( x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(h^`5.h^`OJQJo(hHh pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.88^8`o(. ^`hH.  L ^ `LhH.   ^ `hH. xx^x`hH. HLH^H`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.808^8`0o(. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(opp^p`CJOJQJo(@ @ ^@ `CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(PP^P`CJOJQJo(808^8`0o(. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.0^`0o(. 88^8`hH. L^`LhH.   ^ `hH.   ^ `hH. xLx^x`LhH. HH^H`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.Lo Qf9f_Yd_[U*\vzk29@A5 CJGWH0k`6        4W        TP        `        zzZI        Z 4-7_f >x F  '% a=v` d\gr_g9 ( !8#s%pK&+(+*y +R@,jz-%B./Y7/*]2G4my5'6a;67Y7lb788z8N9+W:+]<"> %?Z?FAaA LDuDEn)ERFUFGlHd'J/J0J |M USUTUWV^WcXeZ88\._|`G`P`u`oWbpbcd,dz=den9eO,&758Ase^+/u8oOF86Enn 1ra8;'x~`S'N~*DWq8?`` bl?k*/:@Nml!2@J?I}xg375CO8~x ;K`o/'JL93*fzqnn2>'3CVv@^inC_K;WSeg@@Unknown G* Times New Roman5Symbol3. * Arial[5  |i0BatangCheTimes New Roman9GaramondW BatangArial Unicode MS7.  Verdana?= * Courier New;WingdingsA BCambria Math 1hSƶFlFsH#!xH#!x4d 2qP?K2! xx Depth CompBCIT Daniel Ahadi(       Oh+'0T]  4 @ L Xdlt| Depth CompBCIT Normal.dotm Daniel Ahadi14Microsoft Office Word@r@$D=#@2 @̉ G#!H#G[VT$m  -&" WMFCr !AlVT$m EMFAD "q   % %  Rp@Times New Roman" h" " L" RQ`2" " 4" " $Q`2" " Id/1" " l,d/1XG* Times ew RomanTF" 8'1 4" 4" x%1 \" l,dv% % %  TT Z/ A@tc@ LP / : TT'PA@tc@:LP ': THcSl A@tc@c*LDefinition of Comprehensive Examinations: N0$<$6=6$N7Z<01<0<*60H77Y=6$6<+$Tlm SA@tc@m LXDepthN0<$=TTSA@tc@LP : Rp@Times New Roman" h" " L" RQ`2" " 4" " $Q`2" " Id/1" " Ld/1XG* Times ew RomanpI" 8'1 4" 4" x%1 \" Ldv% % % TT 4 SA@tc@ :LP 4 ? Rp{@Times New Roman" h" " L" RQ`2" " 4" " $Q`2" " Id/1" " d/1XG* Times ew Roman|E" 8'1 4" 4" x%1 \" dv% % % TTVA@tc@,L(Challenging) Discursive Representations of ,`JC%%;JC%JC,"`%4;J;4%C;!`;J<;4;J-C,%CJ4!C,"TTV@A@tc@LP @H!"  % % % T< A@tc@iLtMuslims in the West~J4%&m4!&J!,K;!;4,Rp{@Times New Roman" h" " L" RQ`2" " 4" " $Q`2" " Id/1" " Ed/1XG* Times ew RomanF" 8'1 4" 4" x%1 \" Edv% % % TT= x A@tc@= iLP <!"  % % % TT 4 A@tc@ LP ? TT 4 A@tc@ yLP ? Rp@Times New Roman" h" " L" RQ`2" " 4" " $Q`2" " Id/1" " <d/1XG* Times ew RomanI" 8'1 4" 4" x%1 \" <dv% % % TT A@tc@LP( !T|  A@tc@ L\ApprovedH88,22,8TT  A@tc@ LP),!TT " A@tc@ LP 6 TT + wA@tc@ bLP 6 TT y+ A@tc@ LP 6 TT#]A@tc@HLP 6 % % % T`> A@tc@ LdDaniel AhadiT;A!3!TA;@ TT? `} A@tc@? LP T? % % % TT + V A@tc@ A LP 6 Rp@Times New Romanl PRQ`2 8$Q`2 Id/1 ,d/1 XG* Times ew Roman4F8'1 88x%1 `,dv% % % T X A@tc@  LxStudent ID: 200013465 822,2H222222223TT X A@tc@ LP 2- TT " < A@tc@ % LP - TT > " A@tc@ LP - TT " " A@tc@ LP - TT $ " A@tc@ ~ LP - T;  A@tc@; LCMNS 895: Comprehensive ExamCYH8222C2N2!,2,2'2,=3,MTT  A@tc@ LP - Td { A@tc@dd LdSeptember 278,2,N2,!22Tp { A@tc@ d LX, 20082223TT { A@tc@ d LP - TT } " A@tc@ LP - TT " a A@tc@ J LP - TT c " A@tc@ LP - TT GA@tc@0LP - TTIA@tc@LP - % % % T77A@tc@!LxSupervisory Committee7<<<006+607N7ZY$%00TT8R7A@tc@8!LP TxS 7A@tc@S!L\Members f1Y<00+TT $ 7A@tc@ !LP YT% 67A@tc@% !Lfor Comprehensive Examinations$60N7[<00<0<*&" WMFC A70H76Z<6$6<+TT7p7A@tc@7!LP : % % % TT8#A@tc@LP 6 % % % T)A@tc@LtSenior Supervisor: 8,82,888,,2'2,!% % % T*tA@tc@*=LDr. Catherine Murray, Professor, School of Communication, SFUH!C,2,!2,Y2!".08!2!,('2!8,2222!C2NN22,,2287ITTuA@tc@uLP N- % % % TT#A@tc@zLP 6 Rp@Times New Roman" h" " L" RQ`2" " 4" " $Q`2" " Id/1" " \ d/1XG* Times ew RomanE" 8'1 4" 4" x%1 \" \ dv% % % TT>A@tc@LP % TtOA@tc@<LSignature: __________________ .*)%)%****)**)**)**))***Tpsn OA@tc@t<LX______)**)*)TTm  OA@tc@m <LP LTT ! OA@tc@ <LP O,T" 4OA@tc@" <LtDate: ______________<%%****)**)**)**)TT3WOA@tc@3<LP % % % % TTQ#A@tc@LP 6 TT#5A@tc@ LP tc6 % % % T5A@tc@ LdSupervisor: 888,,2'2,!% % % T7uA@tc@GLDr. Kirsten McAllister, Assistant Professor, School of Communication, SDH!H!',2Y,H',!H''',28!2!,''2!8,2222!C2NN22,,228TXv7A@tc@vLPFU7ITT7"A@tc@LP - TTA@tc@LP tc- % % % TT>{A@tc@hLP % T~A@tc@LSignature: ___________________.*)%)%****)**)**)**))***)Tl~n A@tc@LX_____***)*)TTm ~ A@tc@m LP TT ~! A@tc@ LP ,T" ~4A@tc@" LtDate: ______________<%%****)**)**)**)TT3~WA@tc@3LP % % % % TTNA@tc@7LP - % % % TTR'A@tc@LP : TT'GA@tc@1LP tc: T8K A@tc@'LAdditional Supervisory Committee MemberKN<<$6=6<=<006*707N6ZY%$00f1Z<10TT K" A@tc@ LP N: TT'@A@tc@*LP tc: % % % T@A@tc@ LdSupervisor: 888,,2'2,!% % % T8Bq A@tc@'LDr. Karim H. Karim, Associate ProfessorBH!H,!NHH,!NH''2,,,8!2",''2!TTr B A@tc@r LP 2T B A@tc@  L`and Chairr ,22C2,!T BA@tc@ L|, School of Journalism C8,2222!(22!2,'N % % % T8 &A@tc@'Land Communication, Carleton University.,22C2NN22,,22C,!,22H22,!'0% % % TT  %A@tc@ LP ,:% % 666666666666666666666666666666666666 6 66 6  6 66 6  6 66 6  6 66 6  6 66 6 &WMFCA66666666666666666666  ?H."System--@Times New Roman---  2 sF>  2 {F> J2 *F>Definition of Comprehensive Examinations:            2 5F>Depth_   2 cF> @Times New Roman--- 2 F> @Times New Roman---M2 ,F>(Challenging) Discursive Representations of            2 vF> ,>F'---(2 CF>Muslims in the Westi     @Times New Roman--- 2 F> ,>F'--- 2 F>  2 F> @Times New Roman--- 2 ${F>(2 $F>Approved   2 $F>) 2 $F>  2 7F>  2 JF>  2 ]{F> ---2 rm F>Daniel Ahadi   2 rF> --- 2 F> @Times New Roman---+2 VF>Student ID: 200013465m      2 F>  2 F>  2 F>  2 F>  2 F> 52 0F>CMNS 895: Comprehensive Exam       2 F> 2 a F>September 27   2 F>, 2008  2 F>  2 F>  2 0F>  2 CF>  2 V{F>  2 i{F> ---+2 }{F>Supervisory Committeem     2 }0F> 2 }4F>Membersd  2 }|F> 82 }F>for Comprehensive Examinations          2 }F> --- 2 {F> ---(2 {F>Senior Supervisor: e    ---g2 =F>Dr. Catherine Murray, Professor, School of Communication, 911Թ           2 F> --- 2 {F> @Times New Roman--- 2 F> 72 F>Signature: __________________s2 dF>______ 2 F>  2 F> 1)2 F>Date: ______________  2 VF> --- 2 {F>  2 {F> ---2 { F>Supervisor:  ---v2 GF>Dr. Kirsten McAllister, Assistant Professor, School of Communication, S            2 F>FU 2 F>  2 !{F> --- 2 1F> 82 AF>Signature: ___________________2 AjF>______ 2 AF>  2 AF> 1)2 AF>Date: ______________  2 AVF> --- 2 S{F> --- 2 h{F>  2 }{F> F2 {'F>Additional Supervisory Committee Member          2 F>  2 {F> ---2 { F>Supervisor:  ---F2 'F>Dr. Karim H. Karim, Associate Professor         2 F> 2  F>and Chair .2 &F>, School of Journalism    ---F2 'F>and Communication, Carleton University.    --- 2 F> -->>FF>>FF>>FF==FF==FF==EE==EE==EE==EE<<EE<<EE<<EE<<DD<<DD<<DD;;DD;;DD;;DD;;CC՜.+,0l hp|  4 x 2 Depth Comp-(Challenging) Discursive Representations of Muslims in the WestDepth Comprehensive Exam@(Challenging) Discursive Representations of Muslims in the WestOverview: ProblematicQMy depth comprehensive is designed to correspond to my area of research: the MusPSettling in new countries brought with it a series of problems both for the recPThere are three main areas of investigation. First I will focus on the historicPTo summarize then, this comprehensive exam is broken up according to these geneQProblematizing a) the historical roots of the construction of the other withinQHow contemporary formations of binaries (Islam vs. West, Good vs. Bad Muslims) aQHow do contemporary formations of Muslim identities in the diaspora form, and doJI. The Historical Roots of the Racialized Other: From Foucault to FreudQThe literature reviewed for this section is divided into two groups: the first gPTodorov identifies 1492 as the birth of modernity (Venn and Featherstone, 2006)PAccording to Foucault, the individual subject is not an autonomous agent, but rPDespite these criticisms, Foucault remains an important scholar in social scienMThe question that I address for this comprehensive exam is, how do we situatPThis comprehensive exam also engages with a body of literature that deals with PRanjana Khanna (2003) in her book Dark Continents: Psychoanalysis and ColonialiPIn its full-fledged European form, colonialism manifested itself as imperialismPAnother text on psychoanalysis that will be used in this comprehensive is AnthoPPsychoanalysis has enjoyed a somewhat uneasy position within social sciences. AQIn the introduction of her book Exploring Media Discourse Myra Macdonald (2003) PDespite his important contribution, Saids work has faced fierce criticism. A nPAside from the critics of Orientalism, two additional writings are included in PTibis acknowledgment of the so-called elephant in the room (radical Islamic PMilitancy, in its Islamic garb, is but a form of social protest against the absQAbdel-Samed (2006) finds differences in the degree of radicalization between newPBut Tibis claim cannot be dismissed entirely. Hegemonic voices in the Muslim c Reading List(Core readings in bold)QI. The Historical Roots of the Racialized Other: From Foucault to Freud (10 coQClifford, Michael (2001). Political genealogy after Foucault: Savage Identities.JClifford, James (1994). Diasporas. Cultural Anthropology, 9(3), 302-338. Title Headings1  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~ Root Entry F G# Data 1TableIWordDocument3BSummaryInformation(]DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjy  F'Microsoft Office Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q