There are certain stories newspapers here in the U.K. love. Anything that can be classed as “a waste of taxpayer’s money” is guaranteed to find its way into print, even more so if it involves something “frivolous” like artwork. And, as has been noticed previously at MMW, the media also has a fascination with Muslim women’s clothing.
So if there is a story that combines both these fixations, it’s bound to generate a lot of print.
A mock-up of how the Hijab Gate will look. Image via Daily Express website.
Tower Hamlets Council has recently put forward a proposal to build two “Hijab Gates” (pictured at left) at either end of Brick Lane (also known as “Banglatown”). The gates will cost £1.85 million to build, all of which will come from public funds. “Hijab-gate,” anyone?*
In such difficult economic times, it is expected that such expenditure be questioned. However, looking at the media reports, it would appear that money isn’t the biggest issue. Even the aesthetics of the design are not the main cause of controversy.
What is really causing consternation is the choice of Muslim symbol, even in an area with a sizable Muslim population. The Daily Express thunders that such plans are “Pandering to Islam.” Note the usage of the word Islam rather than Muslims–all the better to give the impression of a monolithic entity.
But Tower Hamlets Council is quoted in this piece and others as stating that the headscarf is not solely a Muslim garment but one worn by many different communities.
Next we hear from broadcaster John Nicolson. He is in the piece to supply the other trope much beloved by journalists, that of Muslims being given/seeking preferential treatment to other religious groups:
“They’d never dream of crucifix-inspired gates, nor should they, so why an arch that is Islamic and representing a specifically conservative form of Islam?”
Actually, a pedantic person could claim that the so-called “Hijab Gates” look more like the bandanas worn by some Plymouth Brethren women, but that’s not nearly as juicy as a “Muslims try to take over everything, everywhere” story.
On to the Daily Mail, with includes the phrase “waste of taxpayer’s money” within the headline. It also accuses the project of being “culturally insensitive.” However from the article itself, it’s not actually clear who the project is insensitive to. Firstly, we have the modern artist Tracy Emin decrying that taxpayer’s money could be better spent, which is ironic considering, that she recently proclaimed she would move to France if U.K. tax levels increased.
Next, some criticism of the hijab as a public sculpture, according to local artist Brad Lochore, using a hijab is giving a wrong sign because it means “repression and domination” and “territorialization for one minority group.”
Any chance of a Muslim point of view? No, instead we hear from local resident and chair of Save Britain’s Heritage, Will Palin, who claims the Hijab Gates are unrepresentative of the area’s diversity.
The Daily Telegraph piece probes the issues of cultural insensitivity further. The writer, James Hall, declares that it is wrong for a symbol so closely associated with Bangladeshi Muslims to be used, because Brick Lane is more than just curry houses (inferring that all Bangladeshis can produce is food). To him, hipster vintage shops and locations associated with East End gangsters are far more interesting and worthy of cultural celebration.
All three of these newspapers could be described as politically and socially conservative. Would a more left wing newspaper provide a more nuanced approach? Would it actually bother interviewing any Muslims?
Well, yes it did, but it didn’t actually bother naming them. Tracy Emin, John Nicolson and Will Palin are all quoted and named in The Guardian’s piece, as is Sammy Minzly, a bagel shop owner. The two Muslim women interviewed, both of whom are critical of the plan, describing it as pushing a stereotypical version of Islam and creating tension. They are referred to as “a local Muslim woman” and “Another, a headscarf wearer.”
To not even name the Muslim women just smacks of a lazy Appeal to Melanin, rather then any real concern for what Muslims think. The mere use of the terminology “a headscarf wearer” is so dehumanizing, it is unbelievable that a supposedly politically correct publication could think of using it.
So far I’ve discussed what has been said in all four articles. However, the real issues is not the words on the page, but what they imply, which is that Muslim symbols and public displays of Muslim identity are bad and provocative, even in an area with a large Muslim population. Muslims can provide some background color in the name of diversity and cook nice food for others to eat, but move out of those boundaries and howls of protest will ensue. Muslims cannot celebrate their culture without being accused of imposing it on others. Muslims and Muslim culture can never been seen as positive or even benign—we’re always portrayed as a threat to the established order.
*Editor’s Note: For readers not familiar with 1970s U.S. political history, “-gate” is a suffix used to denote a political scandal. Its use originated with the Watergate scandal during the Nixon administration.
Tags: Banglatown, Brick Lane, hijab, Hijab Gates, Islamophobia
I don’t know, it traces the outline of a woman’s head, except inside where her face would be, you see blue sky, white clouds, cityscape. It strongly reminds me of paintings by René Magritte and Salvador Dalí.
[...] (More: Muslimah Media Watch.) [...]
Funny that! Chinatown in the City of Westminster with its pagodas, pavillion, mythical lions, archways with Chinese characters are celebrated. Every Chinese New Year there will be a footage of lion dance / dragon dance on the six o-clock news. An abstract looking archway in Bricklane – oooooh the Islamophobia!
[...] gate in the heart of Brick lane, London. If you have not you can get the general picture of it here. I personally am not an enthusiastic advocate of spending millions of public money on ‘symbols [...]
Salaam Alaikum,
Jannah – I hadn’t viewed the gates in that way, thank you for the fresh perspective.
Ida – I did mean to mention the Chinatwon gates. Apparently that is acceptable ‘marking of territory’.
Two brief criticisms: firstly, “Islam rather than Muslims” is NOT “to give the impression of a monolithic entity,” it is to make this an issue about ideology, not a personal attack on a group of people. It’s an important point to be drawn.
Secondly, the difference with Chinatown and hijab-gate is that Islam is a religion, whereas China is both ethnicity and nation. Chinatown decor is not symbolic of a religious ideology. Surely you can understand how a secular society like England would find big religious gestures rather concerning? I wouldn’t want hijabs, crucifixes or Scientology crosses for public art here in secular Australia either.
The public arena in a secular society is supposed to be secular, and for for good reasons. Religious symbology is a very inappropriate choice for public art in a secular country.
@ Emily: Chinatown decor is not devoid of religious ideology. Chinese traditions and decorations are flush with Buddhist and animist symbols and ideology. Not to mention the huge gold Buddhas everywhere. So…there goes your argument.
My two cents: the proposed design is ugly. And I think it IS alienating to the other ethnicities that live and have made a history there. If you want to celebrate a culture or all cultures, don’t choose the most loaded symbol from one of them–incorporate cultural elements from them all. Murals and cultural museums contribute better to the beautification of an area.
Fatemeh, perhaps Chinatown where I live is different to Chinatown where you live. The only publicly-funded decor in Chinatown in Melbourne is Chinese lamps hanging above from lamp posts. I don’t think there are Buddhist symbols or animist symbols (asides from the stone lions outside the bank, but I think these are privately funded).
Even if there were religious symbols in Chinatown, Chinese Buddhism and animism hark back to bygone eras, and are now mostly religiously inert, whereas the hijab represents a flourishing and expanding religion (the fastest-growing of all of them), one which is still practiced with deep sincerity by many. Calling the Chinese symbols “religious” is like calling Christmas symbols religious: maybe they are to some, but for the mostly secular lives of the majority who celebrate Christmas they represent a bygone era, becoming devoid of sincere religious sentiment long ago. Perhaps the current potent ideology of China is communism, and I don’t think many people would be happy if the council wanted to use public funds to construct communism-inspired public art.
One more thing: when you say “OTHER ethnicities” are you implying Islam is an ethnicity? I think this is obviously not the case: Islam is a religion, not an ethnicity. We can all change our religion tomorrow, but no-one can change their ethnicity.
They’d be better off using that money having Brick Lane cleaned up than having some art piece put up.
Salaam Alaikum,
Emily “Chinese Buddhism is religiously inert”?
Really? You honestly feel you can neatly summarise the religious beliefs of such a vast and diverse population as “inert”?
As for the U.K being secular, try again. The head of State, the Queen, also has the title of “Defender of The Faith”, that faith being the Church of England, which receives privileged treament from the state as a consequence. You can make all the sweeping generalistions you wish, but the actual facts must feature somewhere.
As for dimissing Islam as an ideology and thus ok to criticise without being accussed of prejudice. To those who are not Muslim, Islam may indeed by just a theory, but to those who are, it is far more deeply held then that. The fact is that Muslims are discriminated against for believing in Islam, attacks on Islam don’t just occur as floating statements, they are frequently transferred into harm visited upon Muslims. An imam was recently blinded in a acid attack as he left his mosque. Do you not see the link between the two?
Finally why is nationalist territory marking acceptable but religious symbols aren’t? Nationalism surely can be just as oppressive and offensive.
The planned area for this design is called Banglatown, it is a Bangladeshi area. I get the awful feeling that underneath the bleating about multi-cultural history is the actual message that Bengali people aren’t entitled to that ownership, they can have their nice restaurants for white people to enjoy, but how dare they feel that they have any right over the area.
Face it, people don’t say anything about “Multi-cultural heritage” when development in the style of white mainstream society is planned.
This, coupled with the recent showing of a Channel 4 documentary which tried to paint the increase in Bengali political participation as creeping Islamisation, all leaves a very bad taste in the mouth.
I don’t get this initiative. A lot of Muslims and intelligent people in general feel justifiably annoyed when the media reduced Islam as a religion, culture, tradition or shared history to the hijab. But here are some Muslims themselves doing the same thing. It’s no wonder the non-Muslim media is so obsessed with the hijab — Muslims themselves are obsessed with it!
I don’t like the structure for a variety of other reasons: it’s exclusive, alienating, homogenizing and downright weird. The hijab is not a ‘cultural’ symbol — it’s a NORMATIVE symbol. They could have picked something less cliche, less divisive.
Salaam Alaikum,
Rochelle – So now the hijab is a divisive cliche? As a hijabi, I find that statement to be rather offensive.
I’m starting to feel that people are missing the point of this post. I wish people would look beyond the structure itself and analyse what the media is actually saying. The media discourse around this issue has been deeply troubling and downright racist.
I understand there are many issues around the use of hijab as an Islamic symbol, but please don’t be fooled into seeing that as the main issue here.
@ Lara.
This blog very justifiably expresses annoyance whenever there’s a book or film or tv special that’s supposed to be about Islam or Muslims or Muslim women and has the word ‘veil’ in the title. I say justifiably because it’s a cliche. And its divisive because many people would agree that the arch-typical ’sign’ of Islam is not the hijab, and its certainly not the sign of Brick Lane. I’ve lived very close to Brick Lane — i don’t think I ever remember seeing a whole lot of hijabis. Don’t you think it’s just a wee bit silly? Don’t you think the western media’s obsession with the hijab is being internalized a little?
And who even decided on this structure? Was there a vote? Or did some councilman decide on it because he thought that was the clearest sign of Islam?
I’m just saying that if you want to move the symbolic representation of Muslims above and beyond the veil (which I do), you have to be critical of this architecture as well.
and ps, you take note with the description ‘headscarf wearer.’ But before that you plead that news media should interview Muslims. Should they interview hijabis too, to get their reaction? Or is this reducing a person’s opinion to their ethnic/religious/racial category and therefore should be ignored? You can’t have it both ways. You’re pissed when they don’t include muslims and then you’re pissed when they call attention to the fact that they included muslims.
maybe they didn’t include the names because the people wanted to remain anonymous.
frustrating.
@ Rochelle: The problem is that the only time they included Muslims, they reduced them to the label “Muslim” or (worse, in my opinion) “headscarf wearer.” If the two Muslims declined to be named, this is something that should be stated. But the inclusion of these Muslim voices is token at best, because The Guardian didn’t care enough to explain who these people were or why their opinions specifically were important. This simply falls back on the idea that any Muslim will do because all Muslims are the same. Token representation is not acceptable.
I’ve lived very close to Brick Lane — i don’t think I ever remember seeing a whole lot of hijabis.
I’ve been to Brick Lane and admittedly it’s not the Banglatown it’s made out to be. There are a lot of Indian restaurants, admittedly, but the real Muslim life of east London is further south and east, around the Whitechapel and Commercial roads (and continuing a long way east). There, you will find plenty of hijabis and niqabis.