Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 15

Sociology Compass 9/5 (2015), 321–335, 10.1111/soc4.

12264

The Conflictual Model of Analysis in Studies on the Media


Representation of Islam and Muslims: A Critical Review
Gabriel Faimau*
University of Botswana

Abstract
This article examines ‘the West versus Islam’ paradigm in the studies on the representation of Islam and
Muslims in the Western media. It argues that while offering insights which uncover the hidden oppressive
power that drives the representation of cultural differences, the use of the conf lictual model of analysis in
exploring media representations of Islam and Muslims provides no space for understanding the creative,
dialogic formation in the encounter of individuals and people from different religious and cultural
backgrounds. This conf lictual model of analysis normally employs a simplistic, binary system of thinking,
and is therefore inadequate as a response to the complex challenges faced by a multicultural society. To
develop this argument, the article reviews various studies on media representations of Islam and Muslims
that have relied on this model. In the light of the inadequacy of the conf lictual model of analysis, the
article suggests a shift to a dialogic model of analysis as developed in the politics of recognition as an
alternative framework that accommodates the possibility of transformation in the encounter of individuals,
people and cultures in a multicultural society.

Introduction
Studies on the representation of Islam and Muslims in the Western media have been growing in
the past three decades (Akbarzadeh and Smith 2005; Ameli et al. 2007; Moore et al. 2008; Baker
et al. 2013; Morey and Yaqin 2011; Poole 2002; Rane et al. 2014; Richardson 2004; Said 1997
[1981]; Faimau 2011, 2013). As far as the theoretical approach is concerned, these studies have
been developed in the light of conceptual frameworks, such as Orientalism, ‘clash of civilisation’
theory, cultural racism and the discourse of Islamophobia. These frameworks clearly offer a crit-
ical analysis of how Islam and Muslims are represented. The problem, however, is that these
frameworks have relied heavily on a conf lictual model of analysis which employs a way of
thinking based on binary oppositions between Islam and the West. Applying this model, schol-
arly studies view the representation of Islam and Muslims in the Western media through a lens
of ‘the West versus Islam’ paradigm. Through a critical review of various conceptual frame-
works in the studies on the representation of Islam and Muslims in the Western media, this ar-
ticle examines how the conf lictual model of analysis characterised by a binary way of thinking
has underpinned the main arguments of these frameworks. After highlighting the inadequacy of
this model, we propose adopting an alternative dialogical model of analysis developed in the
theoretical framework of politics of recognition that offers a new, more productive perspective
on the encounter between individuals and people from different cultural backgrounds.

Conceptual frameworks used in studies on Western media representations of Islam


and Muslims
Contemporary studies on the representation of Islam and Muslims in the Western media have
relied on a number of conceptual frameworks. These include the theories of Orientalism, ‘clash

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.


322 The Conflictual Model of Analysis

of civilisations’ thesis, cultural racism and Islamophobia. This section is an overview and
examination of how these theories have been used as lenses through which Islam and Muslims
have been represented in the Western media.

Orientalist discourse
As early as 1981, Edward W. Said voiced concerns surrounding the coverage of Islam and
Muslims in the media in his book entitled Covering Islam: How the Media and the Experts Determine
How We See the Rest of the World (Said 1997[1981]). Central to Said’s arguments is the notion
that Orientalist assumptions have dominated the development of the way the media and experts
have shaped perceptions of Islam and the rest of the world. In this Orientalist framework, Islam
and the rest of the world are constructed and defined according to Western categories and ways
of thinking.
Said’s analysis is a development of his argument outlined earlier in his famous work
entitled Orientalism, first published in 1978. In this work, Said argues that the failure to
recognise the difference of realities between Western and Oriental societies has profound
implications in the creation of binary oppositions that distinguish between the ‘familiar’
and ‘us’ for Europe and the West on the one hand and the ‘strange’ and ‘them’ for the
Orient and the East on the other (Said 2003[1978]). There is therefore a link between
the power of the West and perceptions of the Oriental simply because these perceptions
provide justification for the West to assert and celebrate its network of power (Mutman
1993). According to Said, the mental operation of representing Oriental societies within
the framework of Orientalist discourse works the same way when Islam and Muslims are
represented. He argues that the European representation of Muslims has always been a
way of ‘controlling the redoubtable Orient’ (Said 2003[1978], 60–69; see also Masuzawa
2005, Chapter 6).
In examining the representations of Islam and Muslims in various Western media, several
scholars have built on the framework of Orientalism, including Edward W. Said himself.
Concentrating on the American media, Said in Covering Islam contends that the media do
indeed offer the opportunity to know more about Islam, Muslims and the Muslim world.
However, by using a negative lens in representing Islam and Muslims, ‘Americans have scant
opportunity to view the Islamic world except reductively, coercively, oppositionally’ (Said 1997
[1981], 55). This powerfully affects conceptualisations of both Americans and Muslims in the
Islamic world. According to Said: ‘To Westerners and Americans, “Islam” represents a resurgent
atavism, which suggests…the destruction of…the democratic order in the Western world. For a
great many Muslims,..Islam stands for a reactive counter-response to this first image of Islam as a
threat’ (Said 1997[1981], 55).
Said’s analysis has clearly inf luenced various studies on the media representation of Islam and
Muslims. In her book published in 2002, Elizabeth Poole employs the Orientalism framework
to analyse articles related to British Muslims. Poole indicates that the cultural clash used in the
British media is constructed through a number of textual binary oppositions, such as freedom
versus constraint; rationality versus irrationality; and morality versus immorality (Poole 2002,
111–114; see also Halliday 2002, 45–47). In these textual binary oppositions, the former term
represents the West and the latter represents ‘the rest’ or, more precisely, Islam. This is clearly
shown in the media’s specific lexical choices, addressing the audience inclusively as ‘we’-‘us’,
in opposition to ‘they’-‘them’. The same Orientalist discourse is used as one of the frameworks
by John E. Richardson in his study published in 2004. According to Richardson, the
representation of Islam and Muslims in the British broadsheet newspapers often maintains the

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Sociology Compass 9/5 (2015), 321–335, 10.1111/soc4.12264
The Conflictual Model of Analysis 323

idea that ‘“the Orient” tends towards despotism and away from development’ and ‘its
“progress” is measured in terms of, and in comparison to “the West”’ (Richardson 2004, 6).
Eltantawy (2007) also uses the framework of Orientalism to examine how Muslim and
Arab women post 9/11 are represented in the US newspapers. He contends that within the
Orientalist framework, Muslim and Arab women have often been represented as either exotic
and mysterious or oppressed and backward. Another study on the media representations of
Islam and Muslims in Slovenia after the 9/11 events finds a tendency to employ ‘we-they’
discourse practically derived from Orientalist discourse. Lucija Bošnick who conducted the
study concludes that ‘the West created its own western image of Islam that suits and matches
the political and psychological needs of the West’ (cited in Kuhar 2006, 132). In a similar vein,
focusing on the Australian news media, Benjamin Isakhan (2010) suggests that the printing press
plays an emergent and constituent role in the propagation of Orientalist ideologies through
which Islam and Muslims are negatively represented. Applying Orientalism framework,
Morey and Yaqin (2011) also find that in the Western media, Muslims are often framed as
‘unenlightened outsiders’ whose values are different from the people in Europe and
North America. Similarly, Rane et al. (2014) identify new Orientalist discourse in Western
media representations of Islam, which stresses the failure of Islam in the context of modernity
because Islam is constructed as incompatible with democracy, human rights and gender equality.
It has been widely acknowledged that Orientalism has been central to contemporary
international relations, particularly in the context of the relationship between Islam and the West.
The studies presented earlier echo similar arguments that the use of Orientalism in explaining the
representation of Islam and Muslims in the media sustains the notion of competing forces
between Islam and the West. Since terrorism has become a central feature in the international re-
lations of the post-9/11 period including recent events such as Boko Haram and Charlie Hebdo
attacks, Orientalist discourse maintains the association between Islam and terrorism. Moreover,
new Orientalism dictates the view that terrorism comprises actions of the ‘other’ and terrorists
are foreign-grown. When an act or event of terrorism does not involve Muslims, as in the case
of the mass shooting in Norway in 2011, immediately media discourse shifts from the notion
of ‘terrorist’ to other terms such as ‘maverick’, ‘nutball’ or ‘crazy loner’, or if the word ‘terrorist’
is used, the euphemistic term ‘home-grown terrorist’ has come into being and is being
popularised in the media (Malreddy Pavan Kumar 2012, 233; Rane et al. 2014, 11). Central to
this shift is the myth embraced in Orientalist discourse based on the perception that Islam is an
inherently violent religion and that ‘the Muslim mind’ is incapable of reason and rationality
(Deepa Kumar 2012). This analysis certainly highlights the lexical choices in media representa-
tions of Islam and Muslims. However, one may argue that while media representation of Islam
and Muslims may provide unlimited lexical choices, in the light of the Orientalism framework,
the opposing conf lict between the West and Islam seems unbridgeable. Moreover, the Orientalist
framework displays a control paradigm within which the West has the power to define and rede-
fine – or even create and recreate – Islam and Muslims. When this paradigm is employed in the
regime of Orientalist discourse, issues such as dialogue and bridge-building clearly have no place.

‘Clash of civilisations’ thesis


While Said used the Orientalist discourse to explain how knowledge about ‘the other’
determines the power over ‘the other’, Samuel P. Huntington later formulated the ‘clash of
civilisations’ thesis in his most quoted and inf luential article entitled ‘The Clash of Civilisations?’,
first published in Foreign Affairs in 1993 and later developed into a book with the same title but
without the question mark. At the heart of this thesis, Huntington argues that in the

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Sociology Compass 9/5 (2015), 321–335, 10.1111/soc4.12264
324 The Conflictual Model of Analysis

post-Cold War World, the primary source of conf lict will be the cultural and religious
identities of people because a clash or a conf lict is a product of their differences. He then
predicts that the basis for conf lict in the twenty-first century is the clash between the West
and Islam (Huntington 1996, 42 and 207–211). This clash, in Huntington’s understanding,
is a product of difference, particularly the Muslim concept of Islam as a way of life
transcending and uniting religion and politics, versus the Western Christian concept of the
separateness of God and Caesar.
When the article first appeared, Huntington’s thesis was dismissed as counterproductive,
curious, strange, wrong and dangerously misleading, on the grounds that in the post-Cold
War World, international politics are still made by governments. This means that governments
do not pursue cultural interests but state and national interests. After all, it is assumed that states
control civilisations. Consequently, if there is a clash, it should be a clash of national interests, not
of cultures (Abrahamian 2003; Klausen 2005). However, following the 9/11 attacks,
Huntington’s thesis gained momentum. Among politicians, commentators, journalists and
theorists, many believe that what we witnessed in the 9/11 events and their aftermath was a
‘clash of civilisations’: a battle between two opposed civilisations, Western and Islamic
(Asani 2003; Fox and Sandler 2006; Halliday 2002; Deepa Kumar 2012; Rai 2006).
Huntington’s thesis has been used in studies on media representations of Islam and Muslims.
In a study on how Islam is represented in the American media, Awass (1996; cited in Baker et al.
2013, 17) concludes that the American media depicted Islam as a threat to Western security.
Here, Islam is closely associated with fundamentalism and terrorism. Although the ‘clash of
civilisations’ thesis is not specifically employed in this study, the analysis echoes its main
proposition. Morey and Yaqin (2011) demonstrate how the ‘clash of civilisations’ thesis has been
used by the media in framing Muslims. They argue that ‘clash of civilisations’ thinking
characterises the divide between ‘Islam’ and ‘the West’ as impassable and stories in the media
are cited to prove this. A recent publication by Rane et al. (2014) echoes the same argument.
It is clear that the use of the ‘clash of civilisations’ thesis in analysing the media representation
of Islam and Muslims maintains the narrative of ‘us’ versus ‘them’, as also applied in the
framework of Orientalism. In various acts of terrorism, this line of narrative is predictable. With
the association of Islam with terrorism and Muslims with terrorists, analysis of media
representation of Islam and Muslims through this framework reduces the encounter between
Islam or Muslims and the West to a ‘clash of civilisations’. The problem is that in this analysis,
the space of interrogating various assumptions related to the notion of ‘clash of civilisations’ is
neglected. For example, in the use of ‘clash of civilisations’, the notion and meaning of
civilisation is not clearly explored, and the hegemonic struggle of Muslims in the context of
Western society is not thoroughly examined. Similarly, when Islam is associated with terrorism
and Muslims with terrorists, there are two emerging questions: First, which civilisation do
terrorist represent? Second, to which community do terrorist belong? In viewing the encounter
of Islam or Muslims with the West through the lens of ‘clash of civilisations’, these questions
remain unexamined (Malik 2015). Therefore, it can be argued that like Orientalism or
Islamophobia, the dichotomy highlighted in the framework of ‘clash of civilisations’ focuses
only conf lict that characterises and polarises the encounter of civilisations while omitting the
dialogic meeting and hegemonic struggle among civilisations.

Cultural racism and Islamophobia


Theories of racism have also provided a framework for studies on Islam and Muslim
communities, particularly in Western societies. Generally, there are two central characteristics
in theories of racism (Rattansi 1994, 54). The first characteristic relies on a biological definition,

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Sociology Compass 9/5 (2015), 321–335, 10.1111/soc4.12264
The Conflictual Model of Analysis 325

through which a population is defined according to various common features such as skin
colour, hair type or shape of nose and skull. The second characteristic attempts to develop
a hierarchy of races, through which some are represented as racially superior or inferior to
others. Anthias indicates that earlier studies seem to frame the notion of racism around ‘a
natural relation between an essence attributed to a human population, whether biological
or cultural, and social outcomes that do, will or should f low from this’ (1995, 288).
However, as pointed out by Gilroy, ‘new racism has successfully distanced itself from the
notions of biological or cultural inferiority, and has instead created a link between race,
nationhood, patriotism and nationalism. This obviously leads to a form of ‘cultural racism’
within which undesirable groups are not ‘conceptualized in explicit racial terms, but as
“Others” more generally’ (1992, 53).
Another framework that is closely related to cultural racism is the notion of Islamophobia.
When the Runnymede Trust published its report entitled Islamophobia: a challenge for us all in
1997, the term Islamophobia was used within the frame of cultural racism (Runnymede Trust
1997, Chapter 6). However, drawing from the use of other terms such as ‘xenophobia’ and
‘europhobia’, the term ‘Islamophobia’ was used as a reference to ‘dread or hatred of Islam –
and, therefore, to fear or dislike of all or most Muslims’ or simply to an ‘unfounded hostility
towards Islam’ (Runnymede Trust 1997, 1 & 4). Today, it is still debatable whether the term
‘Islamophobia’ is useful in identifying contemporary prejudices or stereotypes towards Muslims
(Halliday 1999, Meer and Modood 2009). Chapter 4 of the Runnymede report on
Islamophobia is particularly dedicated to the media coverage of Islam and Muslims. The report
points out that negative references to Islam are routinely ref lected and perpetuated in state-
ments, remarks, editorials, columns, articles, reader’s letters, cartoons and reporting of events
that are widely circulated in the broadsheets and tabloids of both the local and national press.
How have cultural racism and Islamophobia been used as lenses in understanding the
portrayal of Islam and Muslims in the media? In his studies focusing on the Australian media,
Dunn (2001, 2004) analyses the representations of Islam and Muslims in the context of cultural
racism and anti-Muslim feelings. He suggests that ‘Muslims are one of the groups that have
suffered from a worrying degree of racist violence in Australia’ (2001, 293). Moreover, he claims
that while Muslims in Australia have suffered racist abuse, ‘[a]nti-Muslim feeling or
Islamophobia in Australia has been chameleon-like, evolving and changing its emphases, and
developing new strains’ (2001, 292).
Richardson’s study, cited earlier, highlights how racist discourses are produced and sustained
in the media (Richardson 2004). He contends that ‘broadsheet newspapers adopt a White
outlook in their reporting, imagining and positioning their readers as White readers and talking
to them about Muslims rather than assuming that they are talking to Muslims. This tone
inevitably distances “Them” from “Us”, since “ Muslims” are written about in the third person’
(2004, 229). Akbarzadeh and Smith (2005) echo the same argument when they examine the
representation of Muslims in two Australian newspapers, using the framework of cultural racism
and Islamophobia. They conclude that news stories in the Australian print media reinforce the
dichotomy between ‘Us’ and ‘Them’, often with racial undertones (Akbarzadeh and Smith
2005, 36). In relation to reporting, they found that crude Islamophobic reporting in the
Australian newspapers was rare but that the mass media continued to depict Muslims as
immature, backward and foreign. Another study on the Australian news media by Yan Islam
(2010) confirms the same tendency. In a study on Islamophobia in the Slovenian media
representations of Islam and Muslims after the 9/11 events, Srečo Dragoš finds that in fact the
9/11 events were not the cause of the intolerance towards Muslims in the context of Slovenia
because Islamophobia was already in Slovenia before the events of 9/11. He argues that while
the media plays a big role in sustaining Islamophobia, ‘Islamophobia is created, or generated,

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Sociology Compass 9/5 (2015), 321–335, 10.1111/soc4.12264
326 The Conflictual Model of Analysis

primarily in the field of politics, and that the media operate as the reproducers of this
intolerance’ (cited in Kuhar 2006, 133).
How is conf lictual analysis maintained in the use of cultural racism and Islamophobia as an
explanatory framework in the study of media representation of Islam and Muslims? As described
above, these explanatory frameworks maintain the dichotomy of the West versus Islam. In fact,
as argued by Malreddy Pavan Kumar (2012), Orientalism is manifested in cultural racism and
Islamophobia. In maintaining this dichotomy, Islam is viewed as ‘foreign’ and Muslims are po-
sitioned as ‘an unwanted other’ to the West. Or, as Amir Saeed puts it, like Orientalism,
Islamophobia ‘does not allow for diversity; contradictions and semiotic tensions are ignored as
the homogenising ethnocentric template of otherness assumes that there is only one interpreta-
tion of Islam’ (2007, 457). In this sense, one can argue that the positioning of Islam and Muslims
as a monolithic entity within the frameworks of cultural racism and Islamophobia does not al-
low for the possibility of productive encounters between Islam and the West. As a result, both
meeting points and differences between Islam and the West are ignored simply because the
construction of Islam and Muslims in relation to the West is seen as ‘fixed’.

Conf lictual model of analysis: a critical review


A wide range of frameworks including Orientalism, the ‘clash of civilisations’ thesis, cultural
racism and Islamophobia in the studies on media representations of Islam and Muslims have been
presented in the previous section. These theories clearly have their own way of conceptualising
the politics of differences or diversity. However, a conf lictual model of analysis with an embed-
ded binary system or way of thinking has been their main characteristic. In this model, Islam and
Muslims are represented in a context of conf lict and competing binaries, such as the West-rest,
civilised-uncivilised and rational-irrational, in which the former is considered as powerful, supe-
rior, good and modern, representing the West and the latter as powerless, inferior, evil and bar-
baric, representing the Other. In this model, conf lict is the starting point for analysis of various
media discourses on Islam. Consequently, the encounter between ‘the West’ and ‘Islam’ is
always seen in terms of continuous conf lict. A productive encounter of both worlds seems to
have no place in this binary system of thinking.
The use of the conf lictual model of analysis that employs a binary approach in studies on the
media representation of Islam and Muslims produces at least three discursive effects. First, there
is a strong tendency that when argumentation opposes ‘Islam’ to ‘democracy’ or ‘modernity’,
the antithesis simultaneously excludes and debases Islam and Muslims. Second, fear of Islam is
often formulated through negative references such as violence, threat and conf lict, as opposed
to positive references for the West. Third, the application of the binary approach affects media
representations of Muslims in two related ways, namely hegemonisation and homogenisation.
The hegemonisation representation reinforces Western power over Muslims by representing
them as ‘foreigners’ having ‘non-Western’ values. The homogenisation of Muslims is seen in
the tendency to regard Muslims as a single, monolithic community. Poole makes this point
when she stresses that the ‘mainstream press displays a high degree of homogeneity in themes
associated with Islam’ (Poole 2002, 99).
Since the common frames that have been used in the studies on the representations of Islam
and Muslims discussed above generally rely on the binary opposition approach, we may ask why
studies are so obsessed with this approach. According to Razack, scholars play important roles in
sustaining the colonial formulae by actively producing and reproducing the binary opposition
between the civilised or liberated, and the oppressed (1998, 6 and Chapter 4). While the
binary approach provides academic insights and an analytical tool to uncover the hidden
repressive or oppressive power in the relations of individuals or groups, this approach, as already

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Sociology Compass 9/5 (2015), 321–335, 10.1111/soc4.12264
The Conflictual Model of Analysis 327

indicated, provides no space for understanding the productive side of encounter between
individuals and groups.
The premise of the conf lictual model of analysis is also questionable. As far as media discourse
is concerned, this model has been developed on the main premise that media discourse has the
power to control and maintain unjust social representations of other cultures. According to this
premise, power is understood as repressive and oppressive. Individuals and groups are essentially
restricted because they live in a fixed context of clashing relationships. The present reduction of
the field to an array of binary oppositions is largely inf luenced by the colonial constructions of
otherness. In fact, the conf lictual model of analysis maintains this model of construction of the
other. This is echoed by Homi K. Bhabha when he suggests that ‘an important feature of
colonial discourse is its dependence on the concept of “fixity” in the ideological construction
of otherness’ (2009, 94). Consequently, the productive side of power is neglected. McNair
points out that such a premise is arguably embedded in the ideological baggage of domination
and control (2006). It could be argued here that the conf lictual model of analysis is shaped by a
control paradigm. The question is how exactly does the control paradigm play a part in the
conf lictual model of analysis? Control offers no protection; it erodes the autonomy of the other.
Breton and Largent (1996) acknowledge the manipulative aspect of the control paradigm when
they propose that ‘our autonomy is what the control paradigm strives to take from us in the first
place. The paradigm isn’t about guaranteeing human autonomy but about invading it, so that
our energies are put at the disposal of authoritarian systems’ (1996, 64). The control paradigm
clearly sustains the idea of domination, but, contradictory to popular colonial discourse of
‘fixity’, human and cultural relationship in a multicultural context is certainly not a fixed or
static entity but a f luid and multifaceted process. The control paradigm therefore does not have
the last word on reality. In other words, the control paradigm shapes the conf lictual model with
its binary style of thinking and is therefore inadequate for the complex challenges faced by a
multicultural society (McNair 2006).
The main challenge faced by a modern multicultural society has always been the question of
how people can co-exist harmoniously, despite their differences. Within this context, it needs to
be asked how studies on the representation of Islam and Muslims can also take into account the
possible transformation and mutual encounter of individuals, people and cultures in a
multicultural society. The following section suggests the political theory of recognition as a
possible alternative framework in studies on the representation of Islam and Muslims.

The politics of recognition: an alternative framework


The previous section has pointed out the limitations of the conf lictual model of analysis with
its binary approach, developed within conceptual frameworks such as Orientalism, the
‘clash of civilisation’ thesis, cultural racism and Islamophobia. This section offers a shift to a
dialogical model centred on the political theory of recognition, particularly in the works of
Charles Taylor. In 1992, Charles Taylor delivered his analysis on ‘The Politics of Recognition’
at the inaugural address at the Princeton University Centre for Human Values. Taylor’s concept
of recognition is profoundly inf luenced by G.W.F. Hegel’s concept of self-consciousness.
According to Hegel, the development of self-consciousness follows certain stages of conf lict,
including the famous notion of the dialectical relationship of mastery and bondage in which
the master maintains his mastery and at the same time surrenders his chance of recognition,
while the slave holds fast to his relation to the master and his master’s recognition. For Hegel,
mutual recognition requires absolute independence and freedom. The fight for mutual
recognition is therefore a life-and-death struggle. This struggle will only end when all the
demands for mutual recognition are reconciled in a state of harmony or reciprocal equilibrium,

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Sociology Compass 9/5 (2015), 321–335, 10.1111/soc4.12264
328 The Conflictual Model of Analysis

because it is only through the liberation of the slave that the master too becomes completely free
and independent (Hegel 2007[1807], 150–164).
Hegel’s account certainly inf luences Taylor who claims that recognition plays a vital role in
the discovery and construction of personal and collective identity since ‘the development of an
ideal of inwardly generated identity gives a new importance to recognition’ (Taylor 1994, 34).
In other words, recognition is a vital human need, and in order to be a fully formed human
being, one needs recognition from others through dialogue and dialogic formation of identity.
Taylor further argues that the discourse of recognition deals with the discovery and construction
of both individual and collective identity, since the discovery of identity does not happen in
isolation but is negotiated through a continuing dialogue and struggle with others.
When interrogating how Taylor develops the notion of dialogue and dialogic formation of
identity as the foundation for the politics of recognition, we find that his work offers three
important sets of related assumptions (Taylor 1994, 32–33). First, dialogue is the precondition of
identity formation or construction. In other words, struggle in dialogue is a condition for recognition
(Gurevitch 2001). This means that recognition occurs within a dialogical framework. When
questioning how dialogue as a condition for recognition is related to identity formation, it
appears that, in the context of a pluralistic society, identity always becomes a central issue
because identity is people’s main source of meaning and experience (Castells 1997, 6). Since
identity relates to meaning and experience, its construction determines the way people think
about ‘who they are’, ‘where they are coming from’ and ‘how they should live and try to live
their lives according to the answers they find most plausible’ (Ackerman 1989, 5; Berger 1981;
Giddens 1991; Parekh 2001; Markell 2003, 1; Taylor 1994, 33). The process of answering such
questions is one of defining and redefining both individual and collective identity through the
dialogical encounter with others. In other words, identity construction always takes place in a
context of relationship, dialogue and exchange with others. For Taylor, open dialogue and re-
lationships are the key loci and tools of self-discovery and self-affirmation in the culture of au-
thenticity (Taylor 1994, 36). Taylor’s idea echoes Mikhail Bakhtin’s proposition that the
relationship between the self and the other is always an event based on their dialogic relation-
ship. Through dialogue between the self and other, meaning is produced. Therefore, human
existence is basically dialogic (Bakhtin 1984, 293; Gardiner 1992, 31).
Second, dialogue assumes human languages as the media for mutual understanding. Language is
central to human life, and its use is always social and political, in terms of its ability to shape
powerfully ways of human interaction. Moreover, it is a domain in which our knowledge,
understanding and interpretation of the social world is actively created and formed. ‘Language
use exists in a kind of dialogue with society: language is produced by society and… it goes on to
help recreate it. Language first represents social realities and second contributes to the
production and reproduction of social reality or social life’ (Richardson 2007, 10). Language
itself is therefore essentially dialogical and intersubjective. The dialogic nature of language
provides the engine of social relations and a modelling system for the nature of human existence
(Holquist 1990). This is because the use of language enables understanding of the expressions
and the intentions of language users. Through language use, dialogue becomes a means for
mutual understanding that enriches what Taylor calls ‘recognition’. Within this frame, the self
and the other are not two separate entities; instead, they are always in relationship with each
other. The conclusion is clear: If language is essentially social and if it is essential to shaping
human social interaction, then human existence cannot escape from social relations in which
recognising each other becomes crucial.
Third, the negotiation of identity is always in dialogue with the things our significant others want to see
in us. In other words, the motivation for dialogue and recognition is the common challenges and
problems people face together in their co-existence. As far as human nature is concerned, the

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Sociology Compass 9/5 (2015), 321–335, 10.1111/soc4.12264
The Conflictual Model of Analysis 329

problem remains as to how to build a strong bridge between the notion of shared humanity
and the reality of differences between people. Moreover, there is always a price to pay
in investing in dialogue and identity construction, if we consider the condition that we can
only join the dialogue if we can manage to speak to one another without falsifying our
primary commitments to different values or even ways of thinking (Ackerman 1989). This
makes sense because initiative for dialogue requires the courage to ‘get out of oneself’ in order
to meet others. The act of ‘getting out of oneself’ in order to meet others is risky because it
threatens ‘the status quo’ or existence of oneself; it has the potential to silence or be silenced with
the possibility of aggression or even insult, accompanied by fear, shame or guilt (Gurevitch
2001). This is what Hegel explains when he argues about how consciousness splits in the
tensions and struggles of the Slave who strives for recognition and the Master who must go
through a sort of self-negation (Hegel 2007[1807]). The encounter between the Master and
the Slave is therefore a decisive moment of ‘two “Selves” who have become “Other” but must
hold on to their unity and supersede that moment, that is, supersede the other and their own
threatening Otherness’ (Gurevitch 2001, 90). In a broader sense, dialogue is a tool for breaking
the silence because it deals with the way we ref lect on our shared humanity without denying
our differences, or the way differences are taken into account without isolating or neglecting
our shared humanity.
Within the sociological circle, the general explanation described above indicates the
descriptive mode of dialogue. In this descriptive mode, the emphasis of dialogue is directed
towards commonality and unification of the world. This means that dialogue is proposed in
the search for common ground and common purpose. The problem with this emphasis is that
it has the tendency to take the notions of commonality and unity for granted by assuming that
strangeness, difference and opposition can simply be overcome through dialogue, without
being critically aware of the possibility of the split in dialogue or other problems of dialogue,
including factors such as ideologies, beliefs or institutional power (Guveritch 2001, 88; see also
Cissna and Anderson 2002, 9–11). Indeed commonality or common ground is a key factor in
identity negotiation through dialogue. However, dialogue is also a critical and corrective tool.
As a corrective and critical instrument, dialogue offers the possibility of redeeming a distorted
social condition characterised by monologic, authoritarian and totalistic forms as argued by
Bakhtin (1981). Moreover, it also becomes a tool for a communicative action in Habermasian
terms. This means that dialogue opens the space for reasoning, for correcting distorted
opinions and for the execution of rationality, ethics and enlightenment (Gurevitch 2001, 88;
Habermas 1984).
To the question regarding the extent to which the dialogic formation of identity can be
discussed as a matter of common interest in a reasoning society, Taylor responds by explaining
two related concepts, namely politics of equal dignity or politics of universalism, and politics of
equal respect or politics of difference (Modood 2007, 51–53; Taylor 1994 1995; Thompson
2006, Chapters 3–4). In formulating the principles of these two concepts, Taylor argues that
‘[W]ith the politics of equal dignity, what is established is meant to be universally the same,
an identical basket of rights and immunities; with the politics of difference, what we are asked
to recognise is the unique identity of this individual or group, their distinctness from everyone
else’ (Taylor 1994, 38). For Taylor, our sense of dignity depends on recognition of the universal
status of human beings as moral agents, and our sense of self-worth depends upon recognition of
the value of the particular form of human life (Schaap 2004, 525; Taylor 1994, 37–38, 1995,
2002). In the first instance, Taylor’s politics of universalism is founded on the fundamental
principle of the ‘equal dignity for all citizens’ and based on ‘the idea that all humans are equally
worthy of respect’ (1994, 38 and 41). The politics of equal dignity refers to a universal human
potential, what people have in common or people’s shared humanity (Abbey 2003, 128;

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Sociology Compass 9/5 (2015), 321–335, 10.1111/soc4.12264
330 The Conflictual Model of Analysis

Thompson 2006, 46). The second notion, politics of difference, refers to an understanding of
the differences between traditions and individuals, leading to equal respect. According to
Taylor, ‘There is a certain way of being human, that is my way. I am called upon to live my life
in this way and not in imitation of anyone else’s life’ (Taylor 1994, 30). Negotiation of the
differences for equal respect therefore affirms the moral significance of human beings as
social beings.
What is interesting in the Taylorian model of recognition is that Taylor does not bother
much about the practical mechanisms of recognition. He is more interested in the conditions
in which recognition is produced. As already mentioned, central to the Taylorian politics of
recognition is the thesis that identity is partly shaped by recognition and that the absence of
recognition, often by the misrecognition of others, causes real damage and distortion for a
person or group of people (Taylor 1994, 1995, 2002, 2007). Taylor acknowledges that
the absence of recognition appears in various forms. For Taylor, ‘nonrecognition or
misrecognition…can be a form of oppression, imprisoning someone in a false, distorted,
reduced mode of being. Beyond simple lack of respect, it can inf lict a grievous wound, saddling
people with crippling self-hatred’ (Taylor 1994, 25). Recognition is therefore ‘a vital human
need’ that goes along with ‘the intersubjective nature of human beings’ (Honneth
2003, 145). Here, recognition is understood as a matter of self-realisation through an ongoing
dialogical process in Hegelian terms. Or as argued by Honneth, ‘we owe our integrity….to
the receipt of approval or recognition from other persons. Denial of recognition…is injurious
because it impairs…persons in their positive understanding of self – an understanding acquired
by intersubjective means’ (Honneth 1995, 188–189).

Politics of recognition as an explanatory framework


So far, the central arguments of the politics of recognition, particularly the framework offered
by Charles Taylor, have been explained. The question is how can the politics of recognition
outlined by Charles Taylor be applied in the study of cultural representations, including the
representation of Islam and Muslims in the media? This section presents several accounts of
the use of the politics of recognition as an explanatory framework in the studies of
representation of minority groups. It aims to explore what studies would produce when they
are developed in the light of the political theory of recognition. In a study on ethnic minority
groups in Taiwan, Ya-Hsuan Wang (2003) draws on the politics of recognition, introduced
by, among others, Charles Taylor. Wang’s analysis is based on the famous Taylorian premise
that ‘individual identity in an ethnic group would be strengthened by the recognition from
other ethnic groups because such recognition serves as an external support to the internal
identity’ (Wang 2003,4). How does the use of recognition as a theoretical framework in
Wang’s work demonstrate a new way of looking into a productive encounter among
different cultural or ethnic groups? Wang indicates that a sense of superiority and inferiority
is clearly present among ethnic groups in Taiwan. However, the dynamic relationships
among the ethnic groups in this country allow a struggle for recognition within which
differences are accepted in order to create a space for identity formation of different ethnic
groups in Taiwan’s multicultural society. This cultural negotiation is achieved through a
learning process in which the people in Taiwan learned ‘the language, values and other
modes of cultural discourse that predominate in the host society’ (Wang 2003,19). In this
analysis, rather than focusing on the confrontation between a superior group and an inferior
group, Wang focuses more on the dynamic interplay of the struggle for recognition and
identity formation that creates space for productive encounters among different ethnic groups.
Thus, while acknowledging that feelings of both superiority and inferiority exist among

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Sociology Compass 9/5 (2015), 321–335, 10.1111/soc4.12264
The Conflictual Model of Analysis 331

various ethnic groups, the use of recognition as a framework directs the analytical focus
to creative and productive encounters among different ethnic groups, especially in the
Taiwanese context.
In the context of the representation of Islam and Muslims in the media, a study conducted in
2012 by Halim Rane and Jacqui Ewart on the framing of Islam and Muslims in the tenth
anniversary coverage of 9/11 in Australian television news programmes provides an illuminating
analysis. Rane and Ewart did not use the political theory of recognition as a theoretical
framework particularly. However, they moved away from the use of Orientalist or
Islamophobic or clash of civilisation discourse as an explanatory factor in the representation of
Islam and Muslims in the media to a different theoretical framework, namely the framing
theory. At the heart of this theory is the notion that ‘to frame is to select some aspects of a
perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text’ (Entman 1993, 52, also
cited in Rane and Ewart 2012, 311). Through the use of this framework, Rane and Ewart
found that in the context of the tenth anniversary of 9/11, Islam and Muslims were represented
by the Australian television news media within the narrative of a reconciliation process. In this
narrative, Islam and Muslims were not represented as a threat to the West but rather as part of a
narrative about promoting mutual understanding, bridge-building and reconciliation. This
finding is very significant, not only in terms of highlighting the evolution in journalistic practice
with respect to the reporting of issues regarding Muslims, but also in terms of how the choice of
a theoretical framework might affect the way an analysis is developed.
A study conducted by Song Hwee Lim employs the Taylorian notion of recognition as an
explanatory framework in understanding the burden of representation of male homosexuality.
Lim suggests that since male homosexuals still avoid proclaiming their sexuality publicly, ‘the
tropes with which homosexuals can grapple in their identity construction are to be found
mainly in media representation’ (Lim 2006, 45). As a result, the political urgency and struggle
over the meaning of homosexual representation are rendered to media discourse, and therefore,
it is highly possible that their access to various mechanisms of representation is denied. How
does struggle for recognition as pointed out by Taylor take place in this context? Lim argues that
the narrative of self-representation of homosexuals and other minority groups is invariably
embedded in their struggle over representation, including representation by the media. In this
struggle, recognition or acceptance of homosexual identities is not borne out of a positive
affirmation, but rather of ‘constant dialogue with social discourses embodied by friends and
strangers, historical figures and pop idols, characters from fiction and film, and all kinds of
people and texts that one may chance upon’ (Lim 2006, 45). Using this explanatory framework,
the analysis is therefore not based on dichotomous and binary oppositions but rather on the
dialogic process that takes place within communities where minority groups, including
homosexuals, live. Moreover, the philosophy that underpins this framework does not advance
a conf lictual approach but a conversational or dialogic model that provides space for individuals
in various communities to engage in the same struggle for recognition.
The study of Faimau (2013) may be the first attempt to analyse the representation of Islam
and Muslims through the lens of the political theory of recognition proposed by Charles Taylor.
Through the examination of articles published in four British Christian print media, this study
demonstrates that one of the main narratives in the encounter between Christianity and
Islam or Christians and Muslims is the narrative of dialogue and reciprocal recognition. In this
narrative, Muslims are not positioned as ‘an unwanted other’ in British society but rather as
‘partners’ and fellow citizens with the same struggle for a just society in a multicultural context
of living together differently. The dominant representation of Muslims within the narrative of
dialogue, as well as the reciprocal recognition between Christians and Muslims, places social
interaction and social solidarity as common sites for winning and giving respect and recognition.

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Sociology Compass 9/5 (2015), 321–335, 10.1111/soc4.12264
332 The Conflictual Model of Analysis

What is important here is that, unlike the discourse of Orientalism or Islamophobia, this
discourse allows for diversity, and therefore, Muslims are not constructed as one single,
monolithic identity. Furthermore, this study demonstrates that the use of the political theory
of recognition illuminates the analysis of the representation of Islam and Muslims in the
Christian print media analytically and normatively (2013, 190). Analytically, the theory
becomes a tool to analyse the socio-cultural dynamics of the encounter between Christians
and Muslims and how dialogic processes and attitudes lead to various ways of representing Islam
and Muslims. Normatively, in the context of media representation of Islam and Muslims, the
political theory has ‘the appeal of envisioning a well-functioning society that is nurtured and
shaped by dialogue and reciprocal exchange as a basis for identity construction and for struggling
towards social justice’ (2013, 190)
The above accounts illustrate what Taylor’s thoughts and the politics of recognition would
produce in the context of cultural representations, including the representation of Islam and
Muslims in the media as compared to the binary opposition approach. When considering
how the political theory of recognition can shape the studies on the media representation of
Islam and Muslims, it can be suggested that if the conf lictual model with its binary approach
has been developed in frameworks such as Orientalism, the ‘clash of civilisation’ thesis, cultural
racism and Islamophobia, the framework of recognition, as already explained, clearly offers a
contrasting model of analysis based on dialogue and reciprocal encounter. In this model,
dialogic encounter or conversation becomes a point of departure in viewing the encounter of
civilisations or people from different backgrounds. The value of this conceptual framework
can be seen in at least two ways. First, the framework of recognition invests in the centrality
of dialogue of individuals and people from different cultural backgrounds. Dialogue becomes
a venue whereby identity is defined, negotiated and communicated. In other words, identity
is not formed on the basis of personal choice but rather through dialogue and interaction with
other identities. Second, reciprocal recognition or reciprocal exchange becomes a satisfactory
solution in the struggle for recognition (Taylor 1994, 1995). Here, reciprocal recognition
becomes a political tool directed towards achieving political solidarity in the encounter between
the West and Islam, or Christianity and Islam or Christians and Muslims, because it focuses on
both winning and giving respect and recognition.

Conclusion
Studies on the representation of Islam and Muslims in the Western media have relied on
frameworks such as Orientalism, the ‘clash of civilisations’ thesis, cultural racism and
Islamophobia. These frameworks clearly offer analytical tools to examine how the media
determine the way Islam and Muslims are viewed. The problem is that these frameworks have
been underpinned by a conf lictual approach that relies heavily on a simplistic, binary system of
thinking. In this model, conf lict becomes a starting point when analysing various media
discourses on Islam. Consequently, the encounter of ‘the West’ and ‘Islam’ is always seen as
an interactive, continuous conf lict. The conf lictual model with its binary system of thinking
is clearly inadequate to examine the complexity of a modern multicultural society. A dialogical
model with the politics of recognition as a central framework offers an alternative perspective
within which dialogue and dialogic formation of identity become a central point. Dialogue,
rather than conf lict, becomes the starting point. The reason is that cultural identity is essentially
relational. It is formed, defined and redefined through encounter and interaction. This means
that as a framework, the politics of recognition accommodates the productive nature of the
encounter of civilisations or people from different cultural backgrounds. Theoretically speaking,
it provides a more dialogical approach to the study of socio-cultural representations than

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Sociology Compass 9/5 (2015), 321–335, 10.1111/soc4.12264
The Conflictual Model of Analysis 333

theories such as Orientalism, ‘clash of civilisations’, cultural racism and Islamophobia. In essence,
the political theory of recognition has f luidity as an important feature through which social
relationship is characterised by a dialogic formation. Here, relationship shifts from the tendency
of defining reality in fixed black and white terms to a dialogic formation mediated by an
ongoing process of participatory and communicative conversation.

Short Biography

Gabriel Faimau is a lecturer in the Department of Sociology at the University of Botswana. He is


also an advisory board member of the Institute of Resource Governance and Social Change in
Indonesia. His research interests include multiculturalism, the politics of intercultural dialogue
and graduate employability. He is currently conducting a study on the dynamics of religious
market in Southern Africa. His book, Socio-cultural Construction of Recognition, was recently pub-
lished by Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Note

* Correspondence address: Department of Sociology, University of Botswana, Private Bag UB 00705, Gaborone, Botswana.
E-mail: gabriel.faimau@mopipi.ub.bw

References
Abbey, Ruth 2003. ‘Recognizing Taylor Rightly: A Reply to Morag Patrick.’ Ethnicities 3: 115–31.
Abrahamian, Ervand 2003. ‘The US Media, Huntington and September 11.’ Third World Quarterly 24: 529–44.
Ackerman, Bruce 1989. ‘Why Dialogue.’ The Journal of Philosophy LXXXVI: 5–22.
Akbarzadeh, Shahram and Smith, Bianca 2005. The Representation of Islam and Muslims in the Media (The Age and Herald
Sun Newspapers), Melbourne: Monash University.
Ameli, Saied R, et al. 2007. The British Media and Muslim Representation: The Ideology of Demonisation, Wembley: Islamic
Human Rights Commission.
Anthias, Floya 1995. ‘Cultural Racism or Racist Culture?’ Economy and Society 24: 279–301.
Asani, Ali S 2003. ‘‘So that You May Know One Another’: A Muslim American Reflects on Pluralism and Islam.’ Annals of
the American Academy 588: 40–52.
Awass, Omer 1996. ‘The Representation of Islam in the American Media.’ Hamdard Islamicus 19: 86–102.
Baker, Paul, et al. 2013. Discourse Analysis and Media Attitudes: The Representation of Islam in the British Press, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bakhtin, Mikhail 1981. The Dialogic Imagination, Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, Mikhail 1984. Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Berger, Peter 1981. ‘The Pluralistic Situation and the Coming Dialogue Between the World Religions.’ Buddhist-Christian
Studies 1: 31–41.
Bhabha, Homi K 2009. The Location of Culture, New York, NY: Routledge.
Breton, Denise and Largent, Christopher 1996. The Paradigm Conspiracy: Why Our Social Systems Violate Human Potential – and
How We Can Change Them, Center City, Minnesota: Hazelden.
Castells, Manuell 1997. The Power of Identity, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Cissna, Kenneth N and Anderson, Rob 2002. Moments of Meeting: Buber, Rogers, and the Potential for Public Dialogue, Albany,
NY: State University of New York Press.
Dunn, Kevin 2001. ‘Representations of Islam in the Politics of Mosque Development in Sydney.’ Tijdschrift voor Economische
en Sociale Geografie 92: 291–308.
Dunn, Kevin 2004. ‘Islam in Sydney: Contesting the Discourse of Absence.’ Australian Geographer 35: 333–53.
Eltantawy, Nahed Mohamed Atef. 2007. U.S. Newspaper Representation of Muslim and Arab Women Post 9/11.
Communication Dissertations, Paper 18. Available online at http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1017&context=communication_diss, accessed on 20 June 2014.
Entman, Robert M 1993. ‘Framing: Towards Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm.’ Journal of Communication 43(4): 51–8.
Faimau, Gabriel 2011. ‘Naming Muslims as Partners: The Discursive constructions of Islam in a British Catholic Paper.’
Journalism Studies 12(4): 474–89.

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Sociology Compass 9/5 (2015), 321–335, 10.1111/soc4.12264
334 The Conflictual Model of Analysis

Faimau, Gabriel 2013. Socio-Cultural Construction of Recognition: The Discursive Representation of Islam and Muslims in the British
Christian News Media, New Castle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Fox, Jonathan and Sandler, Shmuel 2006. Bringing Religion into International Relations, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
Gardiner, Michael 1992. The Dialogics of Critique: M.M. Bakhtin and the Theory of Ideology, London and New York, NY:
Routledge.
Giddens, Anthony 1991. Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age, Cambridge: Polity.
Gilroy, Paul 1992. ‘The End of Antiracism’ Pp. 49–61 in ‘Race’, Culture and Difference, edited by edited by J. Donald and A.
Rattansi. London: Sage.
Gurevitch, Zali 2001. ‘Dialectical Dialogue: The Struggle for Speech, Repressive Silence, and the Shift to Multiplicity.’
British Journal of Sociology 52: 87–104.
Habermas, Juergen 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action, IBoston, MA: Beacon Press.
Halliday, Fred 1999. ‘Islamophobia Reconsidered.’ Ethnic & Racial Studies 22(5): 892–902.
Halliday, Fred 2002. Two Hours that Shook the World, September 11, 2001: Causes & Consequences, London: Saqi Books.
Hegel, Georg W. F. 2007[1807]. Philosophy of Mind. Translated by William Wallace and A.V. Miller with revisions and
commentary by Michael J. Inwood. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Holquist, Michael 1990. Dialogism: Bakhtin and His Word, London and New York: Routledge.
Honneth, Axel 1995. The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Honneth, Axel 2003. Redistribution or Recognition? A Political-Philosophical Exchange (with Nancy Fraser), London, UK: Verso.
Huntington, Samuel P. 2002[1996]. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. London: Simon & Schuster.
Isakhan, Benjamin 2010. ‘Orientalism and the Australian News Media: Origins and Questions’ Pp. 3–25 in Islam and the
Australian News Media, edited by H. Rane, et al. Victoria: Melbourne University Press.
Islam, Yan 2010. ‘A Lapse of Reason or Islamophobia at Work?’ Pp. 137–59 in Islam and the Australian News Media, edited by
H. Rane, et al. Victoria: Melbourne University Press.
Klausen, Jytte 2005. The Islamic Challenge: Politics and Religion in Western Europe, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Kuhar, Roman 2006. ‘Media Representation of Minorities’ Pp. 123–72 in Media for Citizens, edited by B. Pekovic, et al.
Ljubljana: Peace Institute.
Kumar, Deepa 2012. Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, Chicago: Haymarket Books.
Kumar, Malreddy Pavan 2012. ‘Introduction: Orientalism(s) After 9/11.’ Journal of Postcolonial Writing 48(3): 233–40.
Lim, Song Hwee 2006. Celluloid Comrades: Representations of Male Homosexuality in Contemporary Chinese Cinemas, Honolulu:
University of Hawaii Press.
Malik, Nesrine. 2015. Charlie Hebdo: The ‘Them and Us’ Narrative is a Dangerous Downward Spiral. The Guardian,
Comment is free, 8 January 2015.
Markell, Patchen 2003. Bound by Recognition, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Masuzawa, Tomoko 2005. The Invention of World Religions, London: The University of Chicago Press.
McNair, Brian 2006. Cultural Chaos: Journalism, News and Power in a Globalised World, London and New York: Routledge.
Meer, Nasar and Modood, Tariq 2009. ‘Refutations of Racism in the ‘Muslim Question’.’ Patterns of Prejudice
43: 335–54.
Modood, Tariq 2007. Multiculturalism: A Civic Idea, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Moore, Kerry et al. 2008. Images of Islam in the UK: The Representation of British Muslims in the National Print News
Media 2000–2008. Retrieved from http://www.channel4.com/news/media/pdfs/Cardiff%20Final%20Report.pdf, on
20 August 2008.
Morey, Peter and Yaqin, Amina 2011. Framing Muslims: Stereotyping and Representation After 9/11, London:
Harvard University Press.
Mutman, Mahmut 1993. ‘Under the Sign of Orientalism: The West vs. Islam.’ Cultural Critique 23: 165–97.
Parekh, Bhikhu 2001. Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity and Political Theory, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Poole, Elizabeth 2002. Reporting Islam: Media Representations of British Muslims, London: I.B. Tauris.
Rai, Milan 2006. 7/7: The London Bombings Islam & the Iraq War, London: Pluto Press.
Rane, Halim, et al. 2014. Media Framing of the Muslim World: Conflicts, Crises and Contexts, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rane, Halim and Ewart, Jacqui 2012. ‘The Framing of Islam and Muslims in the Tenth Anniversary Coverage of 9/11:
Implications of Reconciliation and Moving on.’ Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs 32(3): 310–22.
Rattansi, Ali 1994. ‘‘Western’ Racisms, Ethnicities and Identities in a ‘Postmodern’ Frame’ Pp. 15–86 in Racism, Modernity
and Identity on the Western Front, edited by A. Rattansi and S. Westwood. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Razack, Sherene H 1998. Looking White People in the Eye: Gender, Race and Culture in Courtrooms and Classrooms, Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
Richardson, John E 2001. ‘British Muslims in the Broadsheet Press: A Challenge to Cultural Hegemony?’ Journalism Studies
2: 221–42.
Richardson, John E 2004. (Mis)Representing Islam: The Racism and Rhetoric of the British Broadsheet Press, Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Sociology Compass 9/5 (2015), 321–335, 10.1111/soc4.12264
The Conflictual Model of Analysis 335

Richardson, John E 2007. Analysing Newspapers: An Approach from Critical Discourse Analysis, Basingstoke: Palgrave
MacMillan.
Runnymede Trust 1997. Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All, London, UK: The Runnymede Trust.
Said, Edward W. 2003[1978]. Orientalism. London, UK: Penguin Books.
Said, Edward W. 1997[1981]. Covering Islam: How the Media and the Experts Determine How We See the Rest of the World.
London, UK: Vintage.
Schaap, Andrew 2004. ‘Political Reconciliation Through a Struggle for Recognition?’ Social& Legal Studies 13: 523–40.
Taylor, Charles 1994. ‘The Politics of Recognition’ Pp. 25–73 in Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition, edited
by A. Gutmann. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Taylor, Charles 1995. Philosophical Arguments, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Taylor, Charles 2002. ‘Understanding the Other: A Gadamerian View on Conceptual Schemes’ Pp. 279–97 in Gadamer’s
Century: Essays in Honor of Hans-Georg Gadamer, edited by J. Malpas, U. Arnswald and J. Kertscher. Cambridge, MA:
The MIT Press.
Taylor, Charles 2007. Secular Age, Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Thompson, Simon 2006. The Political Theory of Recognition: A Critical Introduction, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Wang, Ya-Hsuan. 2003. ‘Safe or Self? On Human Demands of Ethnic Recognition in Modern Society.’ 6th ESA Conference,
Murcia.

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Sociology Compass 9/5 (2015), 321–335, 10.1111/soc4.12264

Вам также может понравиться