Muslims and the Mainstream in Australia: Polarisation or Engagement?

Abstract

Most studies of relationships encompassing Muslim minorities and Western societies examine Muslim and non-Muslim orientations separately. Here we investigate the patterns of similarity and difference involving Muslims and non-Muslims in Australia in terms of how they conceptualise the situation of Muslims in a secular society. We deploy Q methodology to study selected Muslims and non-Muslims in the same terms. Our results reveal three substantial positions. The first, ‘Assertive Islamic Belonging’, is mostly (but not exclusively) found among our Muslim subjects. The second, ‘Exasperated Monoculturalism’, is mostly (again not exclusively) associated with non-Muslims. The third, ‘Reciprocal Engagement’, has considerable presence in both sorts of communities. These results shed new light on the content of polarisation stressed in previous studies. They can also be deployed in the interests of productive dialogue across undeniable difference. The ‘Reciprocal Engagement’ position can act as a kind of discursive bridge, and the content of the two more polarised positions shows neither is beyond the reach of dialogue. We explore implications for dialogue across difference in a democracy and show how our findings can inform a deliberative democratic approach to multiculturalism.

Keywords:

• Muslims
• Australia
• Deliberation
• Multiculturalism
• Q Methodology

Notes

[1] In 2005, confrontation began between youths of Middle Eastern descent and non-Muslim youths asserting territorial ‘rights’ to the beach at Cronulla. The year 2012 saw a demonstration and violent clashes with police in central Sydney by young Muslims reacting to a US-made anti-Muslim video.

[2] We identified one Muslim and one non-Muslim who seemed to exemplify polarisation, and used the location of these two in the subjective landscape to guide rotation. For the non-Muslim, we picked the person whose Q sort had the highest number of negative correlations with the Q sorts of Muslim subjects. We justify this selection on the grounds that for non-Muslims, polarisation is in terms of what the individual thinks in relation to Muslim subjects. This approach did not work for the Muslim subjects because the Muslim who had the highest number of negative correlations with non-Muslims did not correlate with any other Muslim, so was an outlier. Instead we picked the individual who, in a factor analysis of the Muslim participants only, exemplified a ‘closed’ orientation to secular society. This selection makes sense because for Muslims, polarisation takes the form of how Muslims should position themselves, not their relation to non-Muslim attitudes.

[3] Starting points for snowballs included people on the street in Muslim areas, a friend of a friend who lived in Muslim Auburn, a non-Muslim participant in a yoga class, a member of a Christian group and friends of friends in rural areas.

[4] Technically, we used centroid factor analysis followed by varimax rotation, followed by judgemental rotation of four factors guided by the locations of the two ‘extreme’ subjects identified in footnote 2. After rotation, one of the four factors no longer had significant presence, so we report only three factors.

[5] A few individuals had no significant loading on any factor; several had a significant loading on two factors.

[6] The average loading for Muslim under 30s on Factor C was 0.25 compared to 0.39 for the over 30s, but most of this difference is accounted for by one under-30 person who had an anomalous loading of –0.70 on Factor C, indicating vehement rejection.