Blogg

av Ellen Thyrén

Det vore svårt att missa hur en idé om Islam har spridit sig i samhället. Det handlar egentligen inte så mycket om tro, utan snarare om andra motiv som gömts under lager av en av västvärlden uppmålad karikatyr av Islam. Denna snabba spridning och utveckling av idéer tänker jag att påverkats mycket av teknologins utveckling som gett större möjligheter för tankarna om Islam att spridas i diverse olika mediekanaler. Vad som kan räknas som islamofobi är ett väl omdiskuterat ämne; definitioner av begreppet har också kritiserats för att strida emot yttrandefriheten.

Media lyfter också upp debatten och påverkar hur den visas upp. Mediatiserings teorin innebär en process där religioners agens, trosidéer och symboler påverkas av hur media fungerar. När media förändras och får en ökad påverkansförmåga skapas både nya villkor för auktoriteter att tala om religion samt nya möjligheter för att bli en av dessa auktoriteter. I detta blogginlägg kommer fokuset att läggas på varför jag inte ser yttrandefrihet som ett fungerande argument för att förneka islamofobi. Detta kommer jag att göra genom att lägga rampljuset på en debatt om begreppets definition i Storbritannien.

För ungefär ett och ett halvt år sedan anklagade den brittiska politikern Lee Anderson Londons borgmästare Sadiq Khan för att vara kontrollerad av Islamister. Flera inom det konservativa partiet i Storbritannien har uttryckt att Andersons kommentar var ”fel” men inte velat kallat den islamofobisk. En debatt om vad islamofobi innebär väcktes till liv och man har tidigare i år skapat en arbetsgrupp för att skapa en ny definition av begreppet.

Det finns alltså för tillfället inte någon officiell definition av islamofobi i Storbritannien som har godkänts av regeringen; en orsak till att de inte tagit sig an en tidigare föreslagen definition är för att de anser att den har konsekvenser för yttrandefriheten. Jag anser att den förslagna definitionen inte behöver vara motstridig mot yttrandefriheten; problemet är istället hur man tolkar yttrandefrihet. Yttrande- och åsiktsfrihet exkluderar inte negativa eller kränkande påståenden, men det innebär inte att den kan köra över alla andra typer av friheter. När yttrandefrihet begränsas bör man dock kunna motivera inskränkningen med hjälp av lagen. En sådan motivering vore exempelvis rätten till att inte bli diskriminerad.

Konceptet yttrandefrihet kan spåras tillbaka till de två grekiska koncepten isegoria och parrhesia. Isegoria handlar om jämställdhet mer än frihet. Parrhesia handlar istället om rätten att säga sanningen till makten; konservativa reducerar det till att endast handla om att kränka istället för att ge skäl för att söka rätten till isegoria. Båda två tillsammans kan ses som viktiga för yttrandefrihet i demokratisk kommunikation.

I vårt samhälle är det heller inte frågan om en spelplan där alla parter har samma möjlighet att säga sina åsikter och bli hörda; det finns en ojämn maktbalans. Islamofobi ger varken utrymme för diskussion eller plats för muslimer i diskursen. Det finns ingen nyansering och orden kommer inte heller från en källa av kunskap om Islam.

Jag ser det här ämnet som viktigt för att det handlar om beslut som tas och påverkar människor i en värld som vi lever i just nu. Ingenting gott kan heller komma ifrån någonting så pass törnigt som sättet Islam målas upp i politiken i väst idag; det är som en bomb där vi själva är de med knappen för att utlösa den. Jag tänker också att vi inte alltid funderar så mycket på vad för betydelse som förståelsen av ord kan ha; man kan se innebörden som självklar för att den sedan ska visa sig att inte vara så självklar som man trodde att den var.

Vi lever i en värld där en av västvärlden konstruerad bild av Islam har fått bli till en sanning och där man vill försöka skydda hat bakom ordet yttrandefrihet. Det är värt att fundera över om den tidigare föreslagna islamofobi definitionen i Storbritannien egentligen strider emot vad yttrandefrihet är. Man kan också fundera över vad man kommer få ut av Storbritanniens försök att skapa en ”ny” islamofobi definition; kommer man, likt med yttrandefrihetsargumentet, bara hitta nya sätt att tala sig runt definitionen?

 

Litteratur- och källförteckning:

Lövheim, Mia & Hjarvard, Stig (2019). The Mediatized Conditions of Contemporary Religion: Critical Status and Future Directions. Journal of religion, media and digital culture. Vol. 8: s.206-225.

Gov.uk (2025) Government launches working group on Anti-Muslim Hatred/Islamophobia definition. https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2025-03-03/HLWS480 (hämtad 29.04.2025).

Mincheva, Dilyana & Hirji, Faiza (2022). At the Limits of Free Speech: The Conditions that Enable Islamophobic Discourse. Canadian journal of communication. Vol. 47/No. 3: s.488-510

Siddique, Haroon (2024). What is Islamophobia and why does Tory government not accept definition? The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2024/feb/27/what-is-islamophobia-and-why-does-tory-government-not-accept-definition (hämtad: 29.04.2025)

Amnesty international. Yttrandefrihet. https://www.amnesty.fi/sv/vad-gor-amnesty/yttrandefrihet/ (hämtad: 02.06.2025)

by Erllane PEREZ SANCHEZ

Being born in Guadeloupe with Dominican origins has always offered me a double culture, rich and contrasted. This mixture allowed me to navigate between two ways of living, thinking, and most importantly… believing. At a very young age, I noticed differences in the way religion is practiced and perceived in these two Caribbean territories. However, I had never really questioned these contrasts in depth. It was only through the Religion and Society course that I began to think seriously about how religion adapts to different cultures, social contexts, and even migration.

Guadeloupe and the Dominican Republic are geographically close, but culturally they have important nuances when it comes to religion. In Guadeloupe, I grew up in an environment where religion is lived freely and often personally. Although Christianity is very present, beliefs are mixed with cultural practices, African influences, and an openness of mind that allows everyone to live their faith or not in their own way. It is not an imposed religion, but rather a legacy that everyone adapts.

In the Dominican Republic, the relationship to religion has always seemed more rigid, even normative. There, many people tend to want to impose their religious vision on others as if there is only one good way to believe. Some practices are judged, and it may be frowned upon not to go to church or to question certain dogmas. We feel a strong influence of Catholicism, but also the rise of evangelical movements sometimes very conservative.

A very striking example for me: in the Dominican Republic, I attended a family discussion where a young girl was criticized because she had chosen to leave her mother’s evangelical church to pursue another form of spirituality. This created a conflict. In Guadeloupe, such a decision would surely have been received with less judgment. These are small details, but they show that freedom of conscience is not lived in the same way everywhere.

Between two worlds, and even more

Growing up between two cultures taught me to observe the details: the words used to talk about God, the gestures, the silences, the freedoms granted or not. What I learned in the course is that these differences are not insignificant. They are part of a broader value system that shapes behaviour, intergenerational relationships and even gender roles.

I also made a parallel with the Panjabis of Southall, seen in class. They too live in a dual culture: that of their origins and that of their daily life in the United Kingdom. Like me, they must juggle between tradition and modernity, between family transmission and adaptation to another way of life. What struck me was the way in which religion becomes a source of strong identity, but also sometimes of tension, especially among young people who want to live differently. Their reality is not the same as mine, but the feeling of having several cultural landmarks seemed very close.

Today, I no longer see religion as a frozen block, but as something that transforms, adapts and lives differently according to cultures. What I have learned in my own life, and reinforced by the course, is that religion is intimately linked to history, society and personal emotions. It can gather or divide, release or lock up, all depending on the context.

Understanding these differences does not mean judging but developing a respectful curiosity. It is also a way to better understand myself, as a young Caribbean woman with two rich heritages, sometimes contradictory, but always sources of reflection.

References:

Furseth, I., & Repstad, P. (2006). An Introduction to the Sociology of Religion: Classical and Contemporary Perspectives (Chapters 7 & 8). Aldershot: Ashgate.

Video: Panjudis of Southall. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yi1pc9Y6kEI&t=1241s

Aimé Césaire (1947). Cahier d’un retour au pays natal

 

by Tomas Lindblom, Study of Religion at Åbo Akademi

Sociology of religion is a sub-discipline within the field of sociology. While sociology is interested in human behavior in relation to society, sociology of religion studies the interplay between society and religion. In this blogpost I contemplate over the possible consequences of abandoning an anthropocentric worldview on society as a man-made structure and embracing a posthuman perspective on the world as a man-modified structure. By adopting ideas from both classical and contemporary sociologists’ understanding of religion and structure, I ponder upon the question whether religion is reenchanting the world through environmentalism.

It is understandable that blending sociology with posthumanism might be seen as a controversial task, especially if the focus is not the merging of man and machine. In the book What is posthumanism (2010) Cary Wolfe explains that the term posthumanism reemerged in the field of humanities in the 1990s but can be traced back to the 1960s and Foucault’s post-humanity speculations and even beyond. Nevertheless, posthumanism here is to be understood as a postmodern world where anthropocentricism gives way for a posthuman playing field where both human and animal agencies modify the world and each other.

One World, One Community. One religion? Image by Pete Linforth from Pixabay

One often recurring subject in contemporary sociology is the debate over structural agency versus individual agency. The British sociologist Anthony Giddens proposes that neither of them reign supreme. Both have according to him agency over each other. Few would disagree with that, but when trying to explain how the agency should be divided between them one is often met with criticism for overstating the individual agency or overemphasizing the structural agency.

Here I would like to pitch the idea of viewing the world as the only structure and animals (including humans) as the modifiers of that structure. Since the postmodern and posthuman world is global and shared by both animals and humans, we all share the same structure or society if you will. Neither create societies or animal kingdoms, but modify one world in their own way. The leap from anthropocentrism to posthumanism reshapes our understanding of structure and is in my opinion vital for battling climate change and the mistreatment of animals. That includes the human animal too.

Much like the classical sociologist Max Weber and his famous disenchantment of the world quote, Anthony Giddens too acknowledges the secularization and rationalization of society and rational thought as problematic to religious society. While Giddens linked religion with tradition, Weber thought about it as religious measures to give hope for a better life and since the goal is rational, a secular and rational world is inevitable. There is a nuance however, Giddens believe religion might make a comeback even within a modern society. The reason for this is that modern society creates new moral problems that cause anxiety within humanity especially in the face of death.

Climate is Changing! In what way are you? Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

Climate change certainly can give rise to both anxiety and existential worries, even though going as far as portraying environmentalism as a religion would be quite drastic. As a matter of fact, it seems that environmentalism is becoming part of already existing religions. For example, the organization GreenFaith, that was founded in 1992, gathers religious people from all corners of the world to save the planet. According to their website their mission is portrayed in the following manner.

“Because the Earth and all people are sacred and at risk, GreenFaith is building a worldwide, multi-faith climate and environmental movement. Together our members create communities to transform ourselves, our spiritual institutions, and society to protect the planet and create a compassionate, loving and just world.”

Greenfaith aims to both transform their religious members, as well as their spiritual institutions. The United Nations environmental programme is also fond of the idea of using spirituality and religious concepts to fight climate change. On their website we find a list of quotes both from Abrahamitic religions and other world religions canonical texts highlighting the environmental ideology in the scriptures.

In conclusion, a posthuman global perspective has the potential to break down earlier imagined anthropocentric structures into a one world structure. Recognizing the agency of humans, animals and material things speak in favor of environmentalist views, causing the anthropocentric elements within religions to adapt. Does this mean that the world is being re-enchanted by religions through environmental means? – Not necessarily, but incorporating religious beliefs in environmentalism makes me wonder what the world might look like if climate-change takes a turn for the worse.

Further reading:

Furseth, I., Repstad, P. & Furseth, I. 2016. An introduction to the sociology of religion: Classical and contemporary perspectives. London: Routledge.

Wolfe, C. 2010. What is posthumanism? Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

GreenFaith (2025) About Us https://greenfaith.org/about-us/ (referred: 04.04.2025)

United Nations (2024) Religions and environmental protection Religions and environmental protection | UNEP – UN Environment Programme (referred: 04.04.2025)