Call for Papers: Special issue for Ethnoscripts on ‘Tradition, performance and identity politics in European festivals’



Call for Papers: Special issue for Ethnoscripts on ‘Tradition, performance and identity politics in European festivals’

Guest editor: Dr Ann Wand, Oxford University

When examining classical anthropological literature on ritual, tradition and performance, most of the material tends to address African or Amerindian studies (see van Gennep’s The rites of passage, 1960; Victor Turner’s The ritual process: structure and anti-structure, 1969; and Huntington and Metcalf’sCelebrations of death: the anthropology of mortuary ritual 1979). As the Anthropology of Europe attempts to works its way into anthropological study, there is as an uneasy divide between classical literature and the study of Europe today. While anthropologists such as Cesare Poppi have tried to apply Hobsbawm’s study of the ‘invention of tradition’ into his work on the Ladin-speaking community of northern Italy (see Revitalizing Europe rituals, 1992), limited resources suggest the need to bridge the gap between classical themes and comparisons with non-European material with the Anthropology of Europe in order to avoid the Occidentalising ‘west versus the rest’ dilemma, which can be found in some aspects of the discipline. In order to fill this lacuna, this issue sets out to focus on two main themes: the (re)invention of tradition, as expressed by Hobsbawm and Ranger (1983), and its relationship with identity politics. As liminality plays a central role in the construction of European festivals, performers’ interpretations of supposedly historically ‘accurate’ carnivalesque practices lead to questions over whether certain traditions performed today are reflexive of societal concerns and political issues. In addition, performers’ identities are also brought to the fore as some masked and unmasked performances provide vehicles to express larger concerns regarding immigration, nationalist identity, economic issues and the diaspora. This focus on the performer, alongside festival participants, also functions as a means to fully recognise and account for the complex and ambiguous ways in which performers are made sense of in certain political settings, while also allowing the authors to move beyond the confines of Hobsbawm and Ranger’s work in order to add to the growing body of literature in the Anthropology of Europe. Through gathering articles around the issues of the (re)invention of tradition and identity politics in Europe, we seek to open a lively discussion concerning the merging of European ethnography with classic literature in the anthropology of ritual, tradition and performance in order that we may contribute towards a truly comparative anthropology.

While the selected papers for this issue thus far derive from a conference hosted at the School of Anthropology and Museum Ethnography at the University of Oxford in March 2017 on ‘Winter festivals and traditions’, this issue plans to look at seasonal festivals in Europe throughout the year. Each of the papers will represent a variety of interpretations of performers’ ideologies as expressed through European traditions.

Selected papers thus far:

Time-honoured tradition or tartan travesty? Diasporic Scottishness and the custom of piping in the haggis

Joy Fraser, George Mason University

‘Wild and beautiful’: The Krampus in Salzburg

Matthäus Rest and Gertraud Seiser, University of Munich and University of Vienna

Once they were shepherds. Górale ethnic identity in celebrations revived and reinterpreted

Pawel Sendyka, Institute of Ethnology and Cultural Anthropology, Jagiellonian University, Poland

Keep your bloody fingers of our Black Pete!’ A contesting, controversial and changing cultural performance in contemporay Netherlands

Reinhilde Sotiria König, University of Amsterdam

Following the Bear: the revival of Plough Monday traditions and the performance of rural identity in the East Anglian fenlands

Richard D.G. Irvine, Open University

The guest editor is currently looking for 3-4 more papers for the April/ May 2018 Ethnoscripts special issue through the University of Hamburg. If interested, please send an abstract of no more than 300 words, along with a brief personal bio, to Dr Ann Wand at ann.wand(at)

Abstracts are due October 25th and a decision will be made by October 30th. Those who are selected will need to submit an 8,000 word paper for peer review by no later than December 10th.

Note: Selected contributors will also have the opportunity to present their research findings on the Early Career Researcher podcast ‘Coffee & Cocktails’.

We look forward to reading your contributions!


Oxford University’s ‘Winter Festivals and Traditions’ conference- available online!


The Institute of Social and Cultural Anthropology (ISCA) at Oxford University has published their ‘Winter Festivals and Traditions’ conference on ETE Education’s YouTube Channel. More information on the speakers and their abstracts can be found here. Otherwise the presenters’ videos can be accessed here.


Tickets on sale for ‘Winter festivals and traditions’ conference, Oxford University- 25 March, 2017


Tickets are now available for the ‘Winter festivals and traditions’ conference at Oxford University for 25 March 2017. A copy of the program is available below:

‘Winter Festivals and Traditions’ Conference

Institute of Social and Cultural Anthropology, Oxford University

9.15-9.45- Registration (Coffee, tea and biscuits will be provided)- Make sure to bring your tickets with you when registering

9.45-10.00 – Opening remarks: Dr Ann Wand, Oxford University

10.00-11.15 – Panel I: Festivals through history

Chair: Johana Musalkova, Oxford University


Dr Brigid Burke, Montclair State University (USA)

The Lenaia: The winter festival of Dionysus in the context of Greek beliefs about death and the afterlife

Dr Joy Fraser, George Mason University (USA)

“Some fiends disguised as mummers”: The Isaac Mercer murder case and the politics of sectarianism in nineteenth century Newfoundland

Dr Richard Irvine, Cambridge University (UK)

Following the bear: the revival of East Anglian Straw Bear traditions

11.15-11.30- Break

11.30-12.30 – Guest speaker

Convenor: Dr Ann Wand, Oxford University

Dr Cesare Poppi, La Scuola Universitaria Professionale della Svizzera Italiana (Switzerland)

Sex and the Afterweb: rethinking tradition and cultural continuity

12.30-13.30 – Lunch (Coffee, tea and snacks will be provided)

13.30-14.45 – Panel II: Krampus and Christmas

Chair: Dr Ann Wand, Oxford University


Dr Gertraud Seiser and Dr Matthäus Rest, University of Vienna and University of Munich (Austria and Germany)

Wild and beautiful: the Krampus in Salzburg

Amber Dorko Stopper, co-founder of Parade of Spirits, Liberty Lands (USA)

Spectres and spectra: building self-sustaining folklore and neurodiversity inclusion into processional arts

Lucinda Murphy, Durham University (UK)

The nostalgia of Christmas worship: a resource for re-collection, re-flection and re-newal

14.45-15.15 = Coffee and tea break (biscuits included)

15.15-16.30- Panel III: Carnival, museums and department stores

Chair: Dr Nicolette Makovicky, Oxford University

Prof. Adrian Franklin, University of Tasmania (Australia)

Where ‘art meets life’: the making of Australia’s most successful mid-winter festival [Dark MOFO] in Hobart, Tasmania

Dr Gareth Hamilton and Dita Vinovska, University of Latvia

Losing ‘track’ of inverted time and space: the ‘Crazy Days’ in and outside a Finnish-owned department store in Riga

Dr Giovanni Kezich and Antonella Mott, Museo degli Usi e Costumi della Gente Trentina (Italy)

Carnival king of Europe: European winter masquerades in ethnographic perspective

16.30-16.45 – Break

16.45-17.45- Panel IV: Animals in festivals

Chair: Robin Smith, Oxford University

Dr Francesco Della Costa, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er Sheva (Israel)

The venerable pig: ritual food sharing within a traditional festival in Abruzzo, Italy

Pawel Sendyka, Jagiellonian University (Poland)

The bacas and the priests: how the old adversaries came together to revive and reinterpret tradition

17.45-18.00- Closing remarks: Dr Robert Parkin, Oxford University


Call for papers: Winter festivals and traditions, Oxford University- 25 March 2017

Call for papers: Conference on Winter Festivals and Traditions at Oxford University, 25 March 2017


The Institute of Social and Cultural Anthropology (ISCA) at Oxford University will be hosting a one-day conference on Saturday 25 March 2017. The conference will focus on ‘Winter Festivals and Traditions’ as part of a larger research discussion on ritual, religion and secularism in modern-day Europe. We invite participants with disciplines in anthropology, religious studies, cultural studies, folklore and similar professions. Topics for submission are not restricted to Europe, but can focus on traditions worldwide.

The objective of this conference is to bring together various disciplines and departments to reconsider how folklore can be interpreted in order to understand the reasoning behind modern traditions in society. Our guest speaker, Dr Cesare Poppi, PhD (Cantab) of la Scuola Universitaria Professionale della Svizzera Italiana (SUPSI), will contribute to an invigorating discussion based on his extensive research on masked rituals and traditions in South Tyrol and Trentino, Italy and Northwestern Ghana.

Paper themes for consideration include, but are not limited to:

  • Mumming/ Masks
  • Neo-paganism, Wicca/ Witchcraft
  • Performance studies
  • Ritual and symbolism
  • Folklore and myth
  • Festivals, nationalism and the State
  • Identity politics
  • Museum studies
  • Religion and Secularism

Applicants should submit abstracts of no more than 250 words followed by a brief description of their background by 7 February 2017. Successful applicants will be notified by 15 February 2017.

Please send your abstracts and any questions you may have to the convenor, Dr Ann Wand at: ann.wand(at)

Launch and First Workshop of The Irish Network for the Study of Esotericism and Paganism


Launch and First Workshop of The Irish Network for the Study of Esotericism and Paganism

In association with the Department of Study of Religions

University College Cork

Friday 31st March 2017

We are pleased to invite scholars to take part in the launch and first workshop of the Irish Network for the Study of Esotericism and Paganism (INSEP), a multidisciplinary research network for scholars working on any aspect of Esotericism (historical or contemporary) or Contemporary Paganism that relates to the Irish context. Its mission is to provide a forum for networking and collaboration among scholars who are based in Ireland and those based abroad who have research interests in the subject areas of esotericism and contemporary Paganism as they relate to Ireland. A general goal of the network is to establish a forum for academics – whether established researchers, postgraduate students, early career researchers or independent scholars – to communicate with each other, share information on relevant conferences and other events, and to promote interdisciplinary collaboration among those researching in the areas of Irish esotericism and Pagan Studies. The Irish Network for the Study of Esotericism and Paganism is a Regional Network of the European Society for the Study of Western Esotericism:
The INSEP invites papers and contributions on the subject of esotericism and Contemporary Paganism that relate to the Irish context, including areas such as:

  • Esotericism, political change and social movements
  • Ethnography and Western Esotericism
  • Contemporary Pagan Studies in Ireland and/or international connections
  • Media representations
  • The notion of Celtic Spirituality
  • Theoretical frameworks/changing paradigms in the academic study of religions

Call for papers: Please submit your proposal in the form of a title and an abstract (max. 250 words), stating institutional affiliation (or independent scholar) to Dr Jenny Butler: j.butler[at] by 21 December 2016. Please put ‘INSEP Proposal’ in the subject line.


Crossing Borders, Breaking Walls: Movement in the French and Italian Speaking Worlds

An interdisciplinary graduate student conference
Hosted by the Department of French and Italian
Indiana University Bloomington
March 10–11, 2017
Crossing Borders, Breaking Walls:
Movement in the French and Italian Speaking Worlds
For as long as our ancestors have populated the earth, human beings have been in constant movement. In movement, the fortunes of peoples rise and fall, old cultures are transformed and new cultures are born. In movement, our ideas collide, our thoughts intertwine and our languages become our sword and shield, but also the harbinger and sculptor of our identities. But there is also another movement, the crossing of not only physical but also metaphysical boundaries: writers who aspire to music in their verses, filmmakers who capture social changes within their frames, women and other minority writers who break the shackles of traditional images—all souls that are not deterred by the conventional limits of their arts. Borders could be affirmative, stressful and violent, but also fluid, productive and revolutionary. There are walls—even today—that are unbreakable and borders uncrossed, be they geographical, social or creative. It is in the upholding of borders that we confront with the limits of our existence; it is in the breaking of walls that we evolve as a species and reinvent our identities as human beings.
Possible areas of reflection:
o   Activism in literature/art/music/cinema and documentary
o   African studies
o   Bilingualism
o   Colonialism/Post-colonialism/Neo-colonialism
o   Crossovers between genres and medias
o   Exoticism/Orientalism
o   Expatriate writer/artists/musicians/filmmakers
o   Folklore/Folk art/Folk music or ethnomusicology
o   Transgendered identity
o   Immigration/refugee issues today and in history
o   Language varieties and contact
o   Migration and estrangement
o   National identity
o   Religious/ethnical contact and conflicts
o   Translation
o   Transnational cinema and literature
o   Travel literature
o   Women and other minority writers/artists/musicians/filmmakers
We welcome submissions from graduate students. Presentations may be in English, French or Italian and should not exceed 20 minutes. Please send abstracts (200/300 words) to by January 20, 2017. Let us know if you have any requests for technology or special arrangements, and we will do our best to accommodate them. In addition to your abstract, please include your presentation title, name, contact information, institutional/departmental affiliation and research interests.

When State Replaces God

An earlier version of this essay was posted on on July 19, 2016 at


June 6, 2016 – Vigilers gather outside of the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York, NY in support of A Post 9-11 Domestic Human Rights Campaign put on by the organization, No Separate Justice. . Photo courtesy of No Separate Justice.

Following every international or domestic terrorism act committed by a Muslim, the American-Muslim community divides under political pressure on the issue of whether or not Muslims should take collective responsibility and communally condemn and apologize for the acts of a few individuals. On the one hand is a group of Muslim activists and organizations who accept collective responsibility by condemning such acts; they are therefore viewed by the dominant Euro-American society as patriotic, “good” Muslims.  On the other hand is a group of activists and organizations who reject collective responsibility and may be viewed as unpatriotic, “bad” terrorist sympathizers. Critics of the former view claim collective responsibility aligns one with the oppressors of Muslims, thus the supporters are viewed as “bad” Muslims. From this perspective, “good” Muslims don’t take collective responsibility but stand up against the state and its violence against Muslims in general.

Although the schism over this debate reverses the “good” and “bad” binary within the community in relationship to Muslims’ experiences of state violence and structural oppression, the dichotomous construct is a result of the historical encounter of colonized people with European colonialization which is perpetuated by the state’s rationalization of the “war on terror.”   George W. Bush deployed this binary to advance foreign and domestic policies using Islam and Muslims for the expansion of US imperialism. Through this logic European colonizers were able to divide and conquer through violence, where “good” Muslims collaborated with colonial masters and accepted the values of the dominant power.  “Bad” Muslims resisted colonial power and domination and were also systematically dismissed as “dangerous.” The binary that has emerged around Muslims engagement with collective responsibility and collective condemnation since 9/11 reproduces these colonial politics and practices between Muslim Americans and their relationship with the state in the “war on terror.”

As an American Muslim who has been working with and advocating for families of Muslims imprisoned pre-emptively in the United States, I want to disrupt the binary around collective responsibility and collective condemnation. I contend that Muslims’ engagement or disengagement in this divisive issue is a result of internalizing Orientalist stereotypes about Islam and Muslims, who are stigmatized as inherently violent.  Involvement with the issue further perpetuates dehumanization and state violence by Muslims.  To understand this process I would like to explore whether criticizing collective responsibility and condemnation erases and hurts some community members and perpetuates state violence.  Does rejection of collective responsibility absolve Muslims from condemning certain harmful individuals?  Does standing up against oppression itself become a form of oppression in the face of multiple oppressions, and is that too, a form of violence?

Collective Responsibility and Collective Condemnation

Collective responsibility suggests that a group is liable for the wrongful acts of a few. The assertion communicates the idea of a collective mind; all are connected to perpetrators without ever having contact with them.  Historically, marginalized groups in the United States have been forced to be accountable for the actions of one person through the principle of collective responsibility and the practice of collective punishment, which is part of the process of the racialization of marginalized communities of color and is central to racism and Euro-American dominance in this country.  Muslims subjected to such racializing politics at this current moment have been forced to self-contaminate themselves with “guilt by association” with individuals who cause harm and share the same faith. But the limits of that responsibility must be interrogated.

Connected to holding Muslims collectively responsible for the wrongful act of a criminal individual is the state demand for collective condemnation. Muslims are under tremendous pressure from government officials, media platforms and dominant Euro-American society to loudly declare and visibly perform their position against terrorism. The implication is that if Muslims don’t condemn, they secretly support terrorism and are therefore a potential threat, warranting suspicion, surveillance and retribution.  In the absence of outward condemnation, all Muslims are guilty until proven innocent and the entire community should be punished and held collectively responsible for any atrocity committed by a Muslim culprit.  Although condemnation can operate independently, when individuals desire to condemn wrongful acts out of their own volition without force, Muslims have been compelled to engage in collective condemnation of “terrorism” as a form of collective responsibility. A similar demand and response from Euro-American Christian populations is missing when a white Christian engages in violence.

The root of collective responsibility and punishment can be traced to religious scriptures of the Bible and Quran where whole nations were held responsible for the bad actions of a few individuals and punished by God. This can be found in many stories of prophets, including the story of Isa (Jesus).  Isa cried over Jerusalem because he realized God’s punishment would descend on the entire city for the actions of a few. When officials in a liberal, secular, modern nation-state demand collective responsibility from Muslims, religion is mixed with the state in a ritualized way. The fusion of religion and state formation was established in ancient times, when religion was the law that guided the conducts of people’s lives, and punished those who sinned against God or the gods.  Evolving from ancient state systems, modern nation-states such as the United States claim to be secular yet were bounded by religious symbols and ritual practices from their very inception, where politics and the legal and penal systems have always blended with Christianity. Among dominant groups, “sinners” have been replaced by criminals who are individually held responsible and punished in modern state systems.


Muslim Supporters of Collective Responsibility

Demands for collective responsibility and punishment are not based on modern liberal principles.  In a modern normative morality, only individuals are responsible for wrongful actions. When the dominant Euro-American society calls for collective responsibility, the Muslim community is compelled to engage in anti-American ethical conduct and forced to go against modern Western values, that is, they are forced to waive or decline individual accountability. Accepting collective responsibility  undermines the very concept and practice treasured in modern notions of individual accountability and justice.  This stance also serves to legitimize the dominant discourse that Islam and Muslims are violent.  Furthermore, acknowledging Muslims’ association with wrongdoers also permits the US government to continue sending informants to mosques and Muslim communities. Supporting this position perpetuates unintended state surveillance, violations of civil liberties and human rights and increased civilian hate attacks on Muslims. Defending this stance affirms Muslims’ connections to terrorism violence, and as a consequence, Muslims solicit more expansive counter-terror measures.  This results in more governmental authority which causes harm to groups and individuals. In turn, defending this position allows states to achieve certain implicit or explicit goals to maintain state power and control over the population, which promotes state violence.

The expectation of collective responsibility is also a state mechanism for continuously scapegoating innocent Muslims as threats to society. Scapegoats emerge during times of crisis and moral panic when individuals or groups resembling perpetrators get classified as a threat to societal values and wellbeing. An increased level of hostility towards the group, which is collectively designated as the enemy, is exhibited. Through these processes of scapegoating and panic, Muslims or people perceived to be Muslims are socially constructed and racialized as “terrorists.”  Scapegoating promotes exclusion and othering of unwanted individuals or groups, empowering dominant groups to exercise power and discipline toward the scapegoated population and the rest of the society.  Muslims have been collectively used as scapegoats in the aftermath of 9/11;  innocent people have been detaineddeportedarrested and tortured both domestically and globally in notorious camps such as the Communications Management Units and Guantanamo Bay.  Muslim Americans have been subject to a separate system of justice where human rights violations through the judicial and penal system are accepted as legal and legitimate. When Muslims accept collective responsibility, they acknowledge the acceptance of abuse of Muslims as scapegoats for atrocities. Therefore, Muslim Americans need to rethink whether this position is helpful in the political struggle to secure collective dignity and self-determination.

Muslim Critics of Collective Responsibility and Collective Condemnation 

Muslims who reject collective responsibility are usually also the ones denouncing collective condemnation in this debate.  Public performances of rejecting collective responsibility and collective condemnation might be viewed by some as revolutionary, by standing against oppressors and state violence.  However, the outward dismissal of one’s responsibility and collective condemnation does not liberate Muslims from the transference of implicit condemnation of individuals. Muslims’ abstention from condemnation vicariously affirms their support for condemnation by the state.  Whether or not some Muslims reject responsibility and condemnation, the perpetrator faces the law and the state punishes the criminal. Thus, rejecters of collective responsibility and condemnation support retributive justice, the idea that violence deserves to be repaid with violence. While this is not a novel position for Americans, however; retribution is a morally acceptable American value and daily law enforcement practice. There is strong public support for harsh criminal penalties based on retributive justice.

When Muslim Americans invoke the law of the state for retribution against a culprit individual, they condemn the wrongdoer to the violence of the state.  As a consequence, rejecters of collective responsibility and condemnation support and maintain state violence on individuals as long as the collective is not subjected to this violence.  This norm of permitting retributive violence is connected to the way the state uses military force in global conflicts. Vicariously endorsing this norm tacitly supports the use of torture for terrorism suspects and the use of military force abroad. This stance supports the violent prison-military-industrial complex, which includes the practice of government surveillance, and the use of informants and the predatory prosecution of Muslims.  Thus the critics of collective responsibility and collective condemnation uphold oppressive systems. This paradox raises questions about rejecters who claim to be resisting state violence in the “war on terror” and whether or not they are working toward dismantling or maintaining oppressive systems.

Further critics of collective condemnation are very much aligned with American and Western values and support modern, liberal, democratic, normative principles of individual accountability when they indirectly condemn the culprit.  The modern liberal morality assumes that there is individual autonomy in committing a crime and affirms the validity of criminal law. Therefore, this position does not absolve criticizers from condemning the wrongdoer; instead, it raises questions about whether or not and how this public performance leads to ending US imperial violence both domestically and globally.  Thus, critics not only condemn few wrongdoers, they also denounce another group of Muslims who have committed no acts of violence— individuals the state selects as scapegoats for predatory prosecution.

The fissure between critics and supporters in the mainstream debates around collective responsibility and collective condemnation is based on the experiences of these two sides which homogenizes Muslim American experiences within this binary. Each position does not distinguish between criminal and non-criminal acts, that is, acts of atrocity and the criminalization of Muslims which involve no actions.  When this position flourishes in public spaces and a supposed act of terrorism violence does occur, it encourages the Muslim mass to internalize the public debate and reject collective responsibility whenever one is accused of “terrorism,” even when there is no violence or intent of violence.

The State, the Muslim Scapegoat and Collective Condemnation

More than 500 innocent American Muslims have been targeted, imprisoned and condemned by the state in government-manufactured, “terrorism”-related cases through entrapment or violation of constitutional and human rights in the domestic “war on terror.”  According to the Human Rights Watch report, these Muslims are victims of predatory prosecution, used as scapegoats in the federal criminal justice system. These Muslims and their families have been expunged and silenced by government institutions, dominant American society and the larger Muslim community.

In order to understand how scapegoating and predatory prosecution occur, it might be helpful to examine how law and religion were intertwined within ancient state systems.  In Teotihuacan, for example, ritual sacrifices were made to the state or gods to control communal violence.  It was believed that group competition for resources and power would lead to violence and destruction, and, in order to manage such violence, human or animal sacrifices were needed to maintain social order and stability. Violence in ritual and sacrifice was required to prevent greater violence in human society.  Those sacrificed became the scapegoats, who were viewed and treated as outsiders or blamed for social evil. They operated as vessels through which the community relieved itself from harm and achieved collective social cohesion.

In modern nation-states, this punishment and sacrifice based on religious ritual is a foundation of the formation of a criminal justice and penal system influenced by Christian ideals, where scapegoats from marginalized groups are identified and punished. The dominant racial group maintains power by punishing and banishing marginalized groups as evidenced by America’s mass imprisonment of people of color.  In the “war on terror,” the criminal justice system is an integral component for the construction and racialization of innocent Muslims as “terrorists.”  Predatory prosecutions are scapegoat cases of “imagined” terrorists, where innocent people have been chosen by the state, ensnared in manufactured charges and processed through the criminal justice system. These prosecutions are part of America’s pre-emptive imperial wars overseas and exemplified by the torture of Muslims in Guantanamo Bay.

Pre- emptive prosecutions that target Muslim sociality and religious and political expressions of bodily markers are used domestically to repress and regulate Muslims as part of the state’s racial management process.  It is through the labelling of a targeted population as “monster” and “terrorist” in the penal system that the state maintains moral panic about the spectre of terrorism as something “real” in the public’s space; it also extends state-sponsored violence against the same population.  By merging race and religion with terrorism and violence, the state socially and legally constructs Muslims for expulsion as criminals, by preserving whiteness as a hegemonic political power while at the same time sustaining the culture of fear and hatred in America.  Media sources further bolster the hype around predatory cases and assault Americans with relentless reports of terror. Living in constant fear of terrorist attacks, such reports can induce subjective beliefs and psychological responses which can make it difficult for the American public to disentangle the real from the unreal—When Americans are forced to internalize moral panic regarding the  imaginary of Muslims as “terrorists” (to the point where people are unable to distinguish reality from falsehood), it becomes a situation for serious public concern.

Targeted Muslims, primarily men, have been convenient scapegoats that society at large has come to blame and indict for everything from social disorder to the economic and political crises of a declining empire. While ancient and modern state systems treat these individuals as “other,” stories in Scriptures expose the innocence of scapegoated individuals and reveal their special connection to God.  However, the mainstream dispute around collective responsibility and condemnation erases such individuals from the conversation.  Moreover, the violence against imprisoned Muslims, who are mostly men, extends beyond the accused and has tangible consequences for women and families as well.

The Rejecters of Responsibility and Condemnation and the Women and Families of the Accused

Apart from having a brother accused and imprisoned on manufactured charges, I have had the opportunity to work with many families and relatives of accused Muslims during my ethnographic research and advocacy work.  Coupled with state surveillance and demonization from the Euro-American dominant society, some of these women and families are traumatized, isolated, stigmatized and alienated in their local communities and expunged from public debates about Muslim Americans. Moreover, these women and families experience withdrawal of collective aid and solidarity and are treated as “other” within the Muslim community.  Like other forms of repression, the assault by arrest, prison and courts have adverse effects on the women and families, their relationships with others, and the community in general. To have a loved one accused, arrested and disappear on accusations of “terrorism”, while being imprisoned in pre-trial solitary confinement for years, or in special prisons such as the Communications Management Unit, become a dangerous stigma, adding to their pain and suffering.  Laila Yaghi has shared with me the pain experienced with her son’s case which left her in depression:

“Injustice is different. It just hurts.  Oppression really, really hurts.  It’s like somebody lost a family member due to a car accident – it’s going to hurt a lot but eventually that person is going to accept that it’s an act from God, and you’re going to accept, and everyone at some point is going to die, our life is going to end sooner or later, that is an act of God. We are going to accept it, and it does hurt, but it doesn’t hurt down to the core. However, injustice and oppression has a whole different meaning.  The pain is so different, and it’s so harsh and so strong. It emanates even from your face, from your whole body, your whole body language and your soul, and speaks volumes that you are being oppressed, and it has to stop.  This is not an act of God.  This is from a human being oppressing other humans because they can do it, because they are allowed to do it, because they think they are better in some way than other human beings, because they are superior. Muslims need to work together and help all these families.”

Some families stated that no one usually helped them throughout their entire ordeal.  Some of the families worked on these issues individually on their own by going to mosques, trying to talk with community leaders and activists, attempting to raise funds for legal representation, etc.  Some of the women and families felt dehumanized when trying to raise funds for legal defense, as people ignored them out of fear of surveillance or treated them badly. Shahina Parveen shared her experiences of trying to seek assistance from her community when her son was imprisoned on an entrapment case:

“I was in a lot of trouble and I went to several places for help because I needed money for a lawyer.  It was very difficult to find a lawyer as they ask for millions of dollars. It was like we became beggars so we put out an advertisement in the newspaper for help.  I went to several organizations but they were not able to assist.  I went to [organizations], but I didn’t get any help or support from them or from anywhere, but I still went.  I went to mosque leaders for help but no help came from anywhere.  They didn’t help because they didn’t want the same thing happening to them.  They probably thought if they help us they will be targeted too as terrorists. This is the environment that we are in.  It’s all injustice. They are afraid of injustice happening to them.”

Trying to seek assistance from the community has been a difficult process for many families.  Major non-profit local and national civil rights and human rights organizations sometimes condemn the families and others have denied support to families of the accused.

Moreover, the Muslim mainstream engaged in the collective responsibility debate also dismisses the scapegoated population.  For example, when the Muslim mainstream erupted on social media rejecting collective responsibility for violence committed by others in 2014 with the hashtag #MuslimApologies, no one tweeted about Muslim men unjustly imprisoned in the federal system or about their families, the people punished and chosen by the state to take collective blame for the Muslims who were tweeting.  The #MuslimApologies campaign involved people from privileged backgrounds who have usually distanced themselves from supporting or standing in solidarity with the accused and their families, resulting from their inability to determine falsehood from reality.

American-Muslims have been engaging with this divisive performance since the atrocity of 9/11, yet there has been little or no support from the community for campaigns by scapegoated families to free their accused loved ones.  These families and a handful of Euro-American activists established the No Separate Justice educational campaign to address rights violations in the domestic judicial system, but there has been no sign of the rejecters or supporters of this discussion in support of this national campaign focused on scapegoated Muslims.  Moreover, my conversations with women reveal that they expect the Muslim community to stand in solidarity with their cause and the entire community to claim collective responsibility for the innocence of their loved ones. To these women, collective responsibility is an act of social justice that is positive and worthy of commitment.  However, communal assistance has not been forthcoming from the Muslim community, including its activist and social justice groups.  That the loved ones of these women were imprisoned on manufactured offenses and have not committed any acts of violence, does not help these families to secure support and remove the stigma manifest within the Muslim community.  No revolutionary collective solidarity and support exists for them to this day. This situation raises questions, not so much about the supporters of collective responsibility, who align themselves with the state, but about the denouncers. When critics promote dissociation from collective responsibility, this position cultivates a certain kind of connotation and meaning about this issue that educates the Muslim mass to reject collective responsibility for people in predatory prosecution by withdrawing support from the accused families as well. 

Moreover, when some Muslims and groups new to assisting affected families claim to support this population but maintain their position as rejecters of collective responsibility, this demonstrates their support for the state and defense of oppressive systems, which  raises questions about their social justice work and support of state violence through retribution. Criticizing collective responsibility does not translate to, or generate, collective support for the families of the accused. Critics are not liberating these women from the accusation of “terrorism,” but instead perpetuate the “guilty until proven innocent” myth as evidenced by the withdrawal of support by the larger society and the Muslim mainstream. The denouncers of apologetic statements are not illuminating or relieving the distressful experiences of these members but exercising domination and protecting the status quo by engaging in schismatic performances around collective responsibility; through their public proclamation critics maintain and perpetuate their relative positions of power and privileges as mainstream Muslim voices, marginalizing the vulnerable population within the community.  Dissociating from responsibility has not helped women and families much with accountability structures or obtaining justice.  As a result, these families occupy a precarious position in the “war on terror.”

The withdrawal of support from this population and their existence as the imagined “monster” exposes moral disorder and the guilt of protecting oneself from becoming scapegoats.  Like the Euro-American dominant society, Muslims seem to have internalized the myths about these accused people and feel justified in their actions against collective support. Muslims believe that their troubles will be eradicated if these individuals are punished or simply vanished.  As a result, Muslims obliterate the voices and experiences of this population and deny them their position as the innocent oppressed whose status is elevated in the Scriptures, revealing their special connection to sacred cosmology. Their existence as scapegoats, taking on the burden of America’s collective guilt, seems to function to unify American society, the Muslim American community and the ummah in this current historical moment.  It is through the existence of this accused population that Americans in general, and Muslim Americans in particular, seem to feel a sense of security, order, stability and purification.

Will the Muslim not condemning, please stand up?

The simplified distinction between rejecter and supporter of collective responsibility raises questions about the extent to which both sides of this debacle have internalized Islamophobia.  Internalization of Islamophobia means Muslims have assumed or co-opted the dominant and Orientalist discourse about Islam and their identities; they have come to believe and accept that Islam is inherently problematic and violent. The deliberate or inadvertent inability to distinguish an accusation as mythical or real is a symptom of internalized Islamophobia. When we believe myths over reality, as intended by the state, we have condemned our own community members as “monsters.”  The willful or unwitting denial of collective solidarity and collective aid as a form of collective responsibility is an act of erasure and condemnation as well. Critiquing collective responsibility has not generated collective support for these families, but instead maintains their guilt. Thus critics become collective condemners, and the pressure on the accused functions as a form of dehumanization and violence.  Renouncement of responsibility for violent crimes does not result in recognition of support for non-violence when state-perpetrated guilt and stigma continue to expand and operate on a scapegoated population. This position also supports state retribution against culprit individuals. Thus the state-perpetrated demand that calls for the outward expression of collective responsibility and condemnation in which Muslim Americans engage reproduces colonial practices and experiences. Through this binary the state maintains its hegemonic power over, and violence against, Muslims and other marginalized communities at home and abroad.


Works Consulted

Aaronson, Trevor. 2013. Inside the Terror Factory. In Mother Jones. January 11, 2003.

Alexander, Michelle. 2012. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. New York, NY: The New Press. 

Ali, Eteraz. 2007. The myth of Muslim condemnation of terror. In Huffington Post. October 10, 2007. Updated May 25, 2011.

Alsultany, Evelyn. 2012.  Arabs and Muslims in the Media Race and Representation after 9/11. New York, NY: New York University Press.

Appel, Liz. 2003. White Supremacy in the Movement Against the Prison-Industrial Complex. In Social Justice. 30 (2)92: 81-88.

Blow, Charles. 2016. Gun control and white terror. In New York Times.  January 7, 2016.

Cainkar, Louise. 2006. The social construction of difference and Arab American experience. In Journal of American Ethnic History. 25 (2-3): 243-278.

Cainkar, Louise and Sunaina Maira. 2005. Targeting Arab/Musim/South Asian Americans:Criminalization and Cultural Citizenship.  In Ameresia Journal. 31 (3): 1-28.

Center of Constitutional Rights. 2010. CMUs: The Federal Prison System’s Experiment in Social Isolation

Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, Targeted and Entrapped: Manufacturing the “Homegrown Threat” in the United States (New York: NYU School of Law, 2011).

Cohen, Stanley. 1973. Folk Devils and Moral Panic. New York, NY: Routledge.

Davis, Angela. 1998. Masked Racism: Reflections on the Prison Industrial Complex

In Color Lines. SEP 10, 1998.

Davis, Chris. 2012. Empire at War: The Effects of the War on Terrorism on the American Middle Class. In Small Wars Journal

Elmir, Rana. 2015. Don’t ask me to condemn terrorism just because I’m Muslim. In Chicago Tribune. Dec. 29, 2015.

Fisher, Max. 2015.  Stop asking Muslims to condemn terrorism. It’s bigoted and Islamophobic. In Vox. January 25, 2015.

Flanders, Rick. 2012. Why did Jesus weep over Jerusalem? In Ministry 127.  January 23, 2012.

Girard, Rene. 1979. Violence and the Sacred. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University.

Haney, Craig. 1982. Criminal Justice and the Nineteenth-Century Paradigm: The Triumph of Psychological Individualism in the “Formative Era.” In  Law and Human Behavior. Vol. 6, No. 3/4: 191-235.

Human Rights Watch. 2014. Illusion of Justice: Human Rights Abuses in US Terrorism Prosecution.  Accessed, May 2, 2016.

Iyer, Deepa. 2015. Beyond the Patriot Act: The Most Harmful State Policy Enacted in the Wake of 9/11. In Truth Out. October 13, 2015.

Kanjwa. Hafsa. 2015. Islam isn’t the problem: American Muslims should be on the front lines of questioning U.S. policies that have contributed to destabilization, sectarianism and bloodshed in the Middle East. In Salon.

Kertzer, David. 1988. Rituals, Politics and Power. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Mamdani, Mahmood. 2002. Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: A Political Perspective on Culture and Terrorism. In American Anthropologist. 104 (3): 766-775.

Rana, Junaid. 2011. Terrifying Muslims: Race and Labor in the South Asian Diaspora. Durham, NC. Duke University Press.

Rothman, David.  2002 Conscience and Convenience: The Asylum and Its Alternatives in Progressive America. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Sacks, Susan. 2002. U.S. Deports Most of Those Arrested in Sweeps After 9/11

In New York Times. July 11, 2002.

SAALT. 2001. American backlash: Terrorists bring war home in more than one. Report by South Asian American Leaders of Tomorrow.

Sadequee, Sharmin. 2014. Families of Muslim Political Prisoners in the United States “war on terror.” In Ummah Wide.  Accessed, May 19, 2016.

Slajda, Rachel. 2010. Muslims Are Just The Latest American Scapegoat

In Talking Points Memo. September 10, 2010.

SpearIt. 2009.  Criminal Justice & Religion. In Religion and Everyday Life and Culture. Eds. Vincent F. Biondo and Richard D. Hecht.  Accessed, May 17,

Stein, Rachel. 2011. Meeting Violence with Violence: The Connection between Retributive Justice and Interstate Conflict. In Social Science Research Network.

US Senate. 2014. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency ‘s Detention and Interrogation Program.

Sharmin Sadequee is a PhD student at Michigan State University.  Her research interests include Muslims and Islam at the intersections of national security laws, modern state, religion and social justice movements. As an artist, she incorporates visual art and photography in her academic and organising work.