“All must have a firm theoretical grasp of racism in order to dilute its crippling effects.”

(Pierce, 1988, p. 33)

“If being an Islamophobe (or if you prefer, committing Islamophobic acts) is a learned activity, then so is detecting it, pointing to it and condemning it.”

(Sayyid, 2014, p. 21)

There are several empirical studies on Islamophobic microaggressions[1] (Nadal et al., 2012; Husain and Howard, 2017; Haque et al., 2019; Chaudry, 2021), however, little has been done towards theorising the phenomenon. These studies have been useful for describing how Islamophobia manifests through subtle yet stunning daily reoccurrences but inadequate for providing any explanatory purchase. It is, therefore, imperative that the implications associated with Islamophobic microaggressions are foregrounded and examined with the same (if not greater) severity than those emerging from the ‘old fashion’ and more consciously performed acts of bigotry and discrimination. A crucial characteristic of microaggressions is how they operate through everyday mundane practices rather than ‘extreme’ incidents. This, by no means, makes this articulation of Islamophobia more ‘humane’. Microaggressions have arguably evolved into the most normalised expression of racism today. As Derald Wing Sue et al. (2007) have argued, microaggressions are indicative of the “changing face of racism” (p. 272). The premise of this blog is to offer an explanation as to why they occur.

Together, David Theo Goldberg and Alana Lentin have lay claim how societal literacy on racism has developed the fertile ground where microaggressions can burgeon and go undetected. This is largely because mainstream understandings have traditionally been associated with Nazi Germany, Jim Crow and Apartheid South Africa. In other words, racism has been designated as only capable of operating through overt, violent and in-your-face expressions. These manifestations of racism have generated universal condemnation but concomitantly restricted our understandings regarding the multifaceted nature of racism. Moreover, Lentin (2016) observed how the ‘post-racial’ framing that has gained traction has erroneously deemed racism as belonging to a bygone era and how any remaining racist attitudes or behaviours are the preserve of a few unbalanced or uneducated individuals. Elsewhere, Goldberg (2015) has intervened by asserting how the ‘post-racial’ thought that has ensued should not be seen to represent the end of racism but rather how it has transformed towards operating implicitly whilst simultaneously obscuring power and privilege. Put differently, the modus operandi of racism now makes it pedestrian as well as spectacular.

In a seminal keynote, Stuart Hall (1997) proposed that race ought to be understood as a floating signifier in how it is constantly adapting and readapting itself to the social, cultural and political landscape. It is chameleon-like. Its meaning can never be fixed given that it is relational and subject to the constant process of redefinition and appropriation with other concepts and ideas in a signifying field. We can see historically, for example, how skin colour has assumed many different meanings over the years. In other words, there is nothing permanent to its essence. Its meaning is constantly changing all the time, shifting and sliding, never remaining static or the same. The notion of Muslimness is synonymous given that it is a sliding signifier that cannot be grounded to producing a fixed meaning considering that factors around appearance, phenotypical features, attitudes and behaviours are always in a constant state of flux in relation to the prevailing socio-historical and socio-cultural backdrop. From a theoretical perspective, understanding Muslimness as a floating signifier enables us to comprehend the significance of the social, cultural and political landscape wherein Islamophobic microaggressions are perpetuated.

In Purity and Danger (1966), Mary Douglas famously averred how dirt was a “matter out of place” (p. 26). Her meaning was not pathogenic but rather symbolic of the ways in which particular cultures and social systems are ordered. These meanings operate not only to sustain and preserve a social order but also to police fixed boundaries vis-à-vis what/ who belongs and what/ who does not. Where there is dirt, there is a system. Dirt is the by-product of a systematic ordering and classification of matter insofar as ordering involves rejecting inappropriate elements” (p. 36). This subsequently implies two fundamental conditions: “a set of ordered relations and a contravention of that order” (p. 44). There is, however, no such thing as absolute dirt: as it metaphorically exists only in the eyes of the beholder(s). This resonates with the understanding of the floating signifier given that there are no fixed and static meanings but rather those that are relational and in a constant state of flux.

What is dirty in relation to one thing may not be dirty in relation to another. For instance, shoes are not dirty per se, although they may be perceived as dirty if they are placed on the kitchen table. Likewise, food is also not dirty in itself unless it stains your clothes. In other words, neither are dirty, in an absolute sense, but may be considered dirty during moments of ‘out-of-place-ness’. Knowledge, according to Douglas, is contextual and dependent upon social portrayals, as something may not be out of place because it is dirty, but it may be dirty because it is out of place. It is, therefore, upon the transgression of boundaries that transgressors find themselves being sanctioned through trivial and/ or profound methods, in an attempt to reorganise the social environment and reinstate the status quo. Within the context of this blog, those sanctions would entail Islamophobic microaggressions being perpetuated ranging from excessive staring to peculiar remarks. All of which have cumulative consequences.

For Douglas, if dirt penetrates a place where it does not symbolically belong then swift action is generally taken to ‘sanitise’ the space and remove the dirt in an attempt to restore ‘normality’. Furthermore, upon characterising something as being ‘out of place’ (and therefore dirty), there is the contemporaneous establishment of what would be ‘in place’ (and therefore clean). I would suggest that examining what is ‘in place’ and what is ‘out of place’ necessitates engagement with the influence of the social, cultural and political landscape. To summarise, being characterised as ‘dirty’ represents the shunning of conventions and the violation of boundaries that uphold the social order and ‘accepted’ ways of being – hence (and consequently) leading to the deployment of sanctions. The symbolic meanings around dirt, therefore, may be likened to those associated with Muslimness. Indeed, it is not the essence of Muslimness but rather the relational context wherein it may be appraised as ‘out-of-place’ – or dirty. Thus, leading to the perpetuation of Islamophobic microaggressions which endeavour to ‘sanitise’ the space by removing Muslimness and restoring ‘normality’.

The purpose of this blog was to theorise Islamophobic microaggressions and offer an explanation as to why they occur. This is a fundamental task that must be undertaken before thinking about how we should respond to microaggressions. Only then can we strive to expose and eradicate Islamophobia in its most discrete manifestation. Against the backdrop of the preceding analysis, I argue that (1) Islamophobic microaggressions are perpetuated when the social order is contravened; (2) When Muslimness penetrates a place where it is constructed as antithetical to the set of ordered relations then it is sanctioned. These sanctions may range from excessive staring to peculiar remarks and have cumulative consequences; and lastly (3) Islamophobic microaggressions function to highlight the ‘out-of-place-ness’ of Muslimness and endeavour to ‘fix’ transgressions.

[1] I use the term microaggressions rather than microaggression. This is to accentuate that the phenomenon is not singular but rather plural and has cumulative consequences.

Additional References

Douglas, M. (1966) Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. Hammondsworth, UK: Penguin Books.

Goldberg, D. T. (2015) Are We All Postracial Yet? Cambridge: Polity.

Pierce, C. M. (1988) “Stress in the Workplace.” In Black Families in Crisis: The Middle Class, edited by A. F. Coner-Edwards and J. Spurlock, 27–34. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Author’s bio

Izram Chaudry is a Qualitative Research Assistant in the School of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Lincoln. He has just submitted his PhD thesis entitled ‘Reflexive BrAsian Family Practices’ which he completed at the School of Sociology and Social Policy at the University of Leeds.”