On Affiliation Anxiety

It is a trite observation by now that our politics and discourse are tribal. Few issues arise in the public sphere except that said tribalism comes to fruition, with forceful antagonisms between competing parties that can lead to the calcification of stances. In such a discursive setting, expedient solidarities are forged and instrumentalized in efforts to denounce and demonize opponents. The rapid formation of these tribes often prevents us from exercising the type of diligence and careful consideration needed to appreciate the reasonability of those we see as our opponents (and vice versa), or to tamp down turbulent disputes. Moreover, our perceptions of others affiliations all too often overdetermines our approach to them, frequently in ways that doesn’t cohere to what they are truly positing, let alone how they in fact view themselves.

Perhaps a simple analogy to draw this out is one of sports and teams. When we are wearing our jerseys and jockeying in the heat of battle, the goal is self-evidently one of victory. But it may be useful for communal, dialogical, and pedagogical purposes to remove our metaphorical jerseys momentarily to gain a better grasp of how the teams in a particular discussion have been formed, whether the rules offer any measure of fairness, or whether the game is really one that provides for productive victory.

Although it is useful to identify groups with category labels (the “teams,” as it were — say, SJW, alt-right, conservative, liberal, progressive, etc.), in common discussions it can often feel that the goal of online conversation has less to do with hearing one another out and more to do with identifying the color of their jersey. Once we’ve sized them up, we proceed to make any number of assumptions about their commitments as well as what their underlying motives must be. If I am in a discussion with someone identified as a liberal, I can (and often will) make a fair number of assumptions about their views on a range of issues (healthcare, gun control, the environment, war, reproductive rights, etc.), just as I can about a conservative. Although the defining of teams can be useful in setting down this assumptive frame of reference for ensuing conversation, it can also make it rather difficult to relate fairly to people’s positions when they actually believe in something for reasons beyond where our assumptions have brought us, or when the team we’ve identified do not coincide with the substance of our interlocutors positions. The presence of said disjunctions in exchanges can often cause relatively low-stakes online debates to become freighted with hostility and spiral out of control into public scandal, with each side expressing deep personal offense and insisting the other side has misunderstood them (or the issues of discussion).

The power of presuppositions concerning team definition can come to the fore when, unbeknownst to us, a rival team agrees with our convictions. This is rather evident in politics, wherein people often express interest and agreement over some policy or another, until of course they discover that it is the position of Republicans, Democrats, AOC, Mike Pence, or some other similarly hated opponent. What tends to transpire after such discovery is either an attempt to exaggerate seemingly trivial distinctions between their otherwise cherished policy interest and the one bearing substantial overlap advanced by a member of the other team, or a simple denial of such (now) historical commitments altogether and adoption of newfangled ideals without too much fuss. We are literally willing to do whatever it takes to win on the field, even if it means breaking a few rules in the process.

If we set aside our jerseys on occasion, we might come to discover considerable overlap with those we assume to be our rivals and learn something about how each of us carries out certain plays and find important tactical advice within a given play-calling scheme. We might also discover that we’ve overlooked the flaws of many on our own team simply because they wear the right jersey, a dynamic which can serve to weaken the teams standing, shift the competitive balance in favor of our opponents, and compromise the franchise reputation.

In my experiences, this problem of affiliation sits at the very center of what causes so many Muslims stress when they are asked to maintain the sexual schema of Islam. Issues like same-sex behavior, transgenderism, reproductive rights, and queer identity are not only difficult issues in the modern world because of the cultural cache they posses, but because affirming the Sharia carries tremendous affiliation anxiety, a stress which can be especially taxing when the Sharia is spoken of as “conservative” Islam. Use of the “conservative” adjectival carries significant implications in team formation and affiliation, and those subscribing to Sharia norms are rather quickly lumped on the same team as other “conservatives” including the Christian right, Mike Pence, Franklin Graham, and, worse yet, Donald Trump. To ask young Muslims to accept a roster change this significant, or to join a team so seemingly deplorable, is to ask them to violate everything they have come to find value in — their existing roster, team identity, and penchant for victory (as an unapologetic minority group confronting patriarchy, white supremacy, etc.). If given a choice to play for a beloved hometown team or cross-town rival, most will pick the former, and many actors on the right carry the reputation of being uniquely (and largely deservedly) ignominious.

The use of team terminology in this context can also succeed at dissembling vital distinctions between those classed together on a given team. If all “conservatives,” for instance, can be conglomerated on the basis of shared opposition to some aspect of the LGBT movement, then articulating Sharia norms, categories, and values becomes far less important and largely irrelevant to those possessing prefabricated conclusions about the character and positions of the “conservative” team they so abhor. Insisting that one is in fact not a “conservative,” or that one genuinely does not recognize his own values and commitments on the conservative team he has been cast is rarely taken seriously, and more often humored as affiliation embarrassment by those on other teams (which, at times, is precisely what is taking place). And this dynamic can just as easily occur in the reverse, wherein individuals opposing political dalliances with UAE political elites, for example, find themselves accused of belonging to crypto-Marxist, Islamist, progressive SJW, etc. teams. Though such affiliations are occasionally true, reflexive accusations of this sort are deployed often to deflate the legitimacy of concerns and hand-wave opposing positions that should merit honest consideration, not stifling dismissal.

The problem of affiliation can weigh heavily on the minds of Muslims in authority positions as well, and many in these positions often feel like general managers trying to recruit prospective athletes by convincing them of their teams superiority and, more often, likeability. This recruitment is all too often centered on franchise aesthetics, congeniality, and related appeals, and not the substance of the various issues that should warrant greater discussion. Consequently, a great number of people end up signing on to teams they don’t fully understand, which can later result in feelings of being misled when they discover the team they’ve been conscripted into. And because they trace this misleading rhetoric back to their recruiters pitch, the reputation of said recruiters takes a hit as they end up looking more like used car salesmen employing dishonest sales tactics than individuals charged with upholding and transmitting prophetic guidance.

When the anxiety of affiliation is removed, we might find the relative overlap we share with other somewhat disreputable actors to be irrelevant to our individual commitments and realize that the problem of affiliation has no power of its own — its only power over us is what we give to it. We might also find that our own discussions end up being more generous towards those we might have written off in other circumstances while being a bit more strident with those who insist we are on the same team as a way of weaseling out of their toxic or otherwise nefarious ideas — ideas which undermine the very integrity of the team if left unattended.

Of course, such a posture cannot be a permanent one, and depending on the context, our relative affiliations matter a great deal and thus should not so easily be set aside. Moreover, the identification of teams can serve to elucidate (just as it can obscure), though we should not confuse the insight team identification gives us with a comprehensive accounting of everyone on a team. In other words, we cannot allow our perception of a team do all of our thinking for us, particularly when we are in discussions with real human beings and provided an opportunity to participate in productive exchanges of ideas with generosity and prudence.

In all of this, we cannot lose sight of our fundamental commitment and loyalty, which belongs to Allah and His Messenger (sal Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam), not the belligerent and ignorant dialectic of some group or another. Believers, if you remain mindful of God, He will give you a criterion [to tell right from wrong] and wipe out your bad deeds, and forgive you: God’s favour is great indeed. (al-Anfal: 29)

We ask Allah to show us the truth as it is and to adhere to it, and to show us falsehood as it is and refrain from it. Amin.

Ben Sixsmith’s recent piece on American Liberalism co-opting Islam has been making some rounds. It is a worthwhile read, even if it describes phenomena many of us have recognized for some time. American Muslims — particularly those who are younger, politically active, and lack real, embodied community — have mostly shifted to the left on many important questions, and although that may not be all bad (say, on the environment, healthcare, etc.), it does make the job of reconciling faith as something greater than oneself rather difficult (to say nothing of the extreme sexual libertinism of the left which is now a firm constituent of the party’s identity and derivative of this individualism).

And to be clear, a shift to the right or left would really be irrelevant to this underlying issue which pervades our political and cultural setting — seeing the world as greater than the all-important “me.” Alan Jacobs has described this predicament as one of “metaphysical capitalism,” pronounced through the gospel: “I am a commodity owned solely by myself; I may do with this property whatever I want and call it whatever I want; any suggestion that my rights over myself are limited in any way I regard as an intolerable tyranny.”

This litany is increasingly difficult to avoid for those trying to find a place in the world. And it can make even rudimentary discussions of faith seemingly intractable, because invariably, at some point or another, you will run up against a series of walls that tell you that *you* are not the center of the world, and that your path to salvation can only be settled by decentering yourself in favor of God — not in some abstract “higher power” sense, but in a concrete, revelation-must-be-adhered-to, submission sense. It can also complicate things for those witnessing social media battles — in most cases, fights over faith-based issues don’t diverge much from any other debate. Which is only to say that it is very easy to instrumentalize the language of faith, not only as part and parcel of sjw currents and liberal politics, but as a social cause divorced from the main concerns that are naturally and inextricably bound up in properly practiced and understood faith. When done, Islam recast in this manner as a social cause becomes a political football, and thus cheapened to something barely recognizable when evaluated against the Quran and Sunna.

All such manifestations are, at their root, about us as individuals more than they are about something bigger than ourselves. It is about maximizing “me” and ensuring that nothing whatsoever interferes with that endeavor. It is, in short, the metaphysical capitalism consuming our moment.

The more time passes, the more I think Carl Trueman was right when he wrote about Christian educational institutions:

Thus, for Christian educational institutions, the way ahead may be very hard. It will not simply be a matter of budgeting without federal loans. It could easily become a matter of budgeting without not-for-profit status. That double whammy is likely to annihilate many of those institutions which refuse to accommodate themselves to the dominant sexual culture. And that means that educators may need to look to new models of pursuing their callings.

The current struggle probably cannot be won in the law courts — certainly not until there are deeper changes in the ethos of society. Laws that may be used to dismantle Christian educational institutions are already on the books. How they are to be applied will be determined by the dominant taste or cultural sentiment. That aesthetic point is what Christians need to address. And that brings us to the need for cultivating good taste, sentiments, and aesthetics.

The response of Christian higher education to the coming winter must therefore be twofold: financial planning for the worst-case scenario, where not only federal money but also tax-exempt status is revoked; and careful reflection on how the curriculum can cultivate accurate and wholesome aesthetic judgment. And, given the very brief time colleges have to shape young people’s minds, they need to see their task as adjunct to the greater task of family and, above all, church — the vessels that carry us from the cradle to the grave.

Muslims would be wise to start thinking along the same lines. I am not sure if a liberal will win the next presidential election (I am at the moment inclined to think Trump will win a second term even with the current impeachment volatility, though things can change between now and November), but liberals will take back the White House at some point. And when they do, it will not be pretty for social conservatives. There is simply too much venom in the air, and far too much partisanship to grant for a restoration of political centrism. Mark Tushnet wrote of abandoning “defensive crouch liberalism” during an Obama administration — this was before the fulminations of Trump and when, by comparison, political discourse was far more tame and amenable to bipartisan compromise (relatively speaking, of course). Quick revenge will be had in the realm of social liberalism: the sexual revolution will be advanced further and religious freedoms will be proscribed under the specter of discrimination. I don’t expect free market conservatism to take much of a hit, nor for items like gun control, the environment, or healthcare to change all that much. Those are “hard” issues that require political battles that can take months, if not years. Gender neutral bathrooms? Ahlan wa sahlan.

Of course, none of this will feel like anything has actually been lost to liberals, and when religious types insist otherwise they will receive the reflexive “hush” that many liberals have by now mastered. You can still worship in peace and harbor whatever bigotry you want in your heart, right? Move on. But the possibility of having anything approaching a publicly affirmed faith or a social setting in which true faith can thrive will become ever more remote. What can be done to forestall this? I really don’t know. But a community high on “American Islam” and embarassingly clinging to progressive movements is unlikely to care much about this, let alone consider adjustments to the institutional and communal cultures needed to give us a chance.

Project Nettie is, by all accounts, a modest wordpress site cobbled together by a group of concerned scientists about the nature of gender discourse in the West. This project is described on the site as follows:

Project Nettie is an online and regularly updated record of scientists, medics and those in related disciplines who, by signing their support for the Project Nettie statement (below), assert the material reality of biological sex and reject attempts to reframe it as a malleable social construct.

It has been nearly two weeks since it started and at last count the list of signatories to the site were well over a hundred, traversing reputable institutions and research centers throughout the globe. This is encouraging and hopefully will serve to inject a bit of sanity back into this debate, but I suppose time will tell.

Two months ago I wrote an impassioned piece about the evil of the Chinese government and the suffering of the Uighur peoples. In it, I referred to reports that mentioned “strong evidence” pointing to government harvesting of detainee organs. A recent article on Business Insider all but confirms that this is occurring. At scale.

As I wrote previously, there is no geopolitical solution I see playing out in the near term. The US is led by a madman whose foremost priority is economic gain, not human rights. Muslim countries are individually infirm, collectively fractured, and far too many dominated by authoritarian elites. The Chinese government has mastered shrugging off human rights objections (see: Tibet), and their size, financial means, and geopolitical dominance means that a military solution is unlikely.

So what should we do? Dua, and lots of it. May Allah help the Muslims of China. Amin.

As always, Allah Knows Best.