Skip to main content
Language and migration

Language or religion: which is the greater fault line in diverse societies?

By July 8, 20156 Comments6 min read5,105 views
Churchill Square Shopping Mall, Brighton, UK (Source: Wikipedia)

Churchill Square Shopping Mall, Brighton, UK (Source: Wikipedia)

In a shopping mall in the city of Brighton, UK, a tourist was arrested on terrorism charges last week for taking a selfie video. Surely, taking selfies in a shopping mall is such a part of contemporary culture that the act itself wouldn’t raise an eyebrow? What was different in the case of this tourist and this selfie? Well, the protagonist of the selfie did not speak English. According to a Daily Mail article, this is how the selfie-taking tourist aroused suspicion:

A Sussex Police spokesman said they were called by security staff after they ‘had challenged a 38-year-old London man who was filming on his mobile phone and recording in a foreign language’. The spokesman added: ‘They were concerned about his motives and he was reported to be acting strangely.’

What “foreign language” do you guess the tourist was speaking? Are you picturing tourists from France or Germany, where the holiday season has just started? Or tourists from China or Japan, who are globally stereotyped as excessive image takers? It’s unlikely that you do, and it’s unlikely that a tourist recording a selfie in any of these languages would have attracted the suspicions of a Brighton security guard.

The suspicious language – you guessed it – was Arabic. The tourist, Nasser Al-Ansari, a 38-year-old London resident and Kuwait native, was recording a Snapchat message for his friends back home. The man was released after three hours, and his side of the story is described in the Daily Mail as follows:

The former banker, who has lived in London since 2013, said: ‘It was a very horrible experience and unacceptable to happen without any specific reason or suspicion.’ ‘It is absurd. It is not something I would expect when visiting somewhere in the UK.’ He added: ‘I was very understanding and I said to them “I know it was a foreign language and my race is a factor but please be fair”. ‘I think there is a thin line between being safe and going over-the-top and this time I think they went a little over-the-top.’

According to the police, it was the “foreign language” spoken by Mr Al-Ansari that was suspicious; he himself links language and race in trying to explain why he was targeted; and some social media commentators, also raised his religion as a factor. One blogger, for instance, went with the headline “Muslim tourist takes selfie in Brighton, arrested on terrorism offences.”

We have often discussed the relationship between linguistic and racial discrimination here on Language on the Move (e.g., ‘Race to teach English;’ ‘Linguistic discrimination at work;’ ‘Shopping while bilingual can make you sick;’ or ‘Racism without racists’). But what about the relationship between language and religion when it comes to exclusion in multicultural societies characterized by linguistic and religious pluralism? How is linguistic and religious difference related to social inequality?

A recent article by the sociologist Rogers Brubaker offers a framework for thinking systematically about the ways in which linguistic and religious difference structure inequality in contemporary liberal democracies. The author identifies four domains where difference may be turned into inequality: the political and institutional domain; the economic domain; the cultural and symbolic domain; and the domain of informal social relationships.

In the political and institutional domain language is inescapable but modern liberal states are relatively neutral vis-à-vis religion. In fact, religious discrimination is widely prohibited where linguistic discrimination is seen as perfectly legitimate. Think, for instance, of citizenship testing: many liberal democracies require a language test in the national language as a precondition of naturalization while no similar religious tests currently exist in liberal democracies; and would widely be considered abhorrent.

Furthermore, in addition to explicit linguistic discrimination in favor of the national language(s), there is the inescapable fact that institutions operate exclusively in one language (or in some cases a small set of legitimate languages): this constitutes, eo ipso, a massive advantage for speakers of the institutional language and a massive disadvantage for people who do not speak the institutional language or do not speak it well.

In the economic domain similar considerations apply: proficiency in the language in which an economic activity occurs is a precondition for participation in that economic activity in a way that religion is not. Speakers of an economically powerful language enjoy an economic advantage because they do not have to invest in learning that language. Furthermore, language learning is a complex – and hence costly – undertaking that may make it difficult to acquire the kind of linguistic proficiency that has high economic value. By contrast, membership in a powerful religion is usually not as directly economically useful as language proficiency is. Furthermore, joining a powerful religion requires a smaller investment. For instance, it is much easier for a non-Christian to convert to Christianity than it is for a non-native speaker of English to acquire high-level proficiency in English.

The cultural and symbolic domain works differently. This domain includes all the discursive and symbolic processes through which respect, prestige, honor – in short symbolic value – is conferred. Here, language is less affected than religion because the “content” of a language is much thinner than that of a religion. That means that negative stereotypes about language tend to be relatively mild in comparison to negative stereotypes about religion. While many people object to the specific tenets of a particular religion, very few people object to the specific grammatical structures or means of expression of a particular language. For instance, the widespread stigmatization of Islam in contemporary media discourses simply has no equivalent in negative stereotypes about any language.

Informal social relationships also have a significant bearing on inequality, and can work through exclusion and through inclusion. Processes of social exclusion may disadvantage members of certain religions or speakers of certain languages. Examples include differential treatment of minorities on the rental market or attacks against minorities on public transport. Both members of religious minorities and speakers of minority languages are vulnerable to such “everyday exclusions.” Of course, a language may be stereotypically associated with a particular religion – as is the case with Arabic and Islam – and in such cases it is impossible to disentangle language and religion as the immediate cause of an experience such as that of Mr Al-Ansari anyways.

Informal social relationships also mediate inequality through inclusion in that social circles tend to form around shared identities; and social networks, friendship circles or marriage opportunities are often based on shared identities. Again, religion and language work differently here. Preferences for religion-internal networks is dogma in some religions while preferences for the formation of language-internal networks tend to be much weaker.

In sum, linguistic and religious difference both translate into social inequality in diverse societies but they do so in clearly distinct ways:

The major sources of religious inequality derive from religion’s thicker cultural, normative and political content, while the major sources of linguistic inequality come from the pervasiveness of language and from the increasingly and inescapably ‘languaged’ nature of political, economic and cultural life in the modern world. (Brubaker 2014, p. 23)

ResearchBlogging.org Brubaker, R. (2014). Linguistic and Religious Pluralism: Between Difference and Inequality Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 41 (1), 3-32 DOI: 10.1080/1369183X.2014.925391

Ingrid Piller

Author Ingrid Piller

Dr Ingrid Piller, FAHA, is Distinguished Professor of Applied Linguistics at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. Her research expertise is in bilingual education, intercultural communication, language learning, and multilingualism in the context of migration and globalization.

More posts by Ingrid Piller

Join the discussion 6 Comments

  • Paul Desailly says:

    What’s to forgive you about Matt? I’d assumed that all save me (it’s meant to be ‘all save I’ isn’t it?) on professor Ingrid’s superb site are academics or about to be.

    You’ve nailed the links i mo in that the first chapter of John in the good Book underscores language, religion, creation and all of us with the Word of God in one holistic plan.

    ‘I’ve never seen a church recently that preaches against a particular language…’ I can’t recall such a thing either, even when the Nazis ruled Germany. Nevertheless, many religious leaders by their actions in compositions, speeches, sermons etc leave the congregation in little doubt as to which language is best if not in reality blessed,

    In the case of virtually all Baha’i leaders as individuals, who by definition according to Baha’i texts are like every one else – no one is perfect anyway – it’s their inaction vis-a-vis the language principle and re Esperanto (an auxlang enjoined upon all of them in authoritative texts in English and in Farsi, i.e. the two de facto official languages of that religion) that leaves the six million strong Baha’i community pretty much convinced about the languages of these cultures. I mean to say, you’ll never find Baha’is, who believe in the oneness of religion anyway, opining that they have a better religion but their actions speak for themselves as to which cultures merit attention.

    “From Babel to Baha’i” depicts all this in a recent new work penned by this amateur

    All the best

    Paul

  • Matt says:

    Forgive me if I sound uneducated–I am by no means an academic on the subject–but I do have a heart for languages, diversity, equality, and religion.
    I think discrimination, in any form, is due to preconceived biases of individuals. The problem is when those biased people become influential leaders that impact a movement or action. For example, I am a Christian. I don’t generally talk about religion, or my beliefs about a topic as uncomfortable as say, homosexuality. Yet, many people unfriend me on facebook or discontinue their friendship the minute they discover I’m a Christian, assuming i’m anti-gay. There are churches that are pro-homosexuality, and churches that are anti-homosexuality.
    Another problem is economic inequalities, as many churches preach that men be providers, again filling the idea that men are more financially capable beings.
    I’ve never seen a church recently that preaches against a particular language, but the problem arises when each religion preaches they are the better religion–I believe religious equality is just not possible, as they can’t successfully coexist unless they compromise what their book says. Not to mention, Holy books are among the most translated of books–they just have an agenda to push in the meantime.
    In short, I believe the issue of inequality stems from people with preconceived beliefs or construed interpretations of who they follow, or perhaps how they were raised.

  • Paul Desailly says:

    No worries Ingrid.Keep up your wonderful penpersonship against prejudice. Here’s a list of countries and participants attending the Esperantists’ Jubilee Congress:
    For access one types in – 2015 – in the box in the middle. The names of countries resemble English. The number of Doctors and Professors and professionals attending is always disproportionately high

    In Lille, Indonesia is represented at last and even the newest UN country, East Timor, will send 3 Esperantists
    This year, remarkably i m o, more Iranian Esperantists will attend than from Australia and New Zealand combined; about 30 mainly from Teheran.
    Given that Esperantists from liberal Australia, and from conservative parts of the Middle East, from China and Japan who still have issues from WW2, and from dozens of really diverse cultures, can all get along well on a mini global scale and approach subjects that some countries find really difficult vis-a-vis gay marriage, homosexuality, post WW2 relations in East Asia, Baha’i-Jewish-Muslim issues of concern etc etc shows there’s hope yet i m o .

  • Paul Desailly says:

    When academics utilize an idiomatic or conversational style, the more so in the title of an essay, my antennae go up. Professor Ingrid deserves many plaudits re her consistent efforts thwarting all sorts of prejudice. Highlighting prejudice in language communities and, it must be said, reciprocally, in certain sects of religion, is crucial so that the cure, what ever it will be, may be applied.

    In a couple of weeks time in historic Lille 3,000 Esperantists (inc. about 20 from Australia) from 80 countries will gather in a 5 star hotel in France on the occasion of the 100th world congress of Esperanto. Were you to hop on a plane and be there you’d concur, I’m sure, that Dr Zamenhof’s language of world peace is certainly one contender for the role of peace maker extraordinaire. Approx 50% of the thousands of paid up card-carrying private members in the Esperanto movement’s global institution are activists in religion. Atheists, Baha’is, Buddhists, Christians, Muslims etc from Iran to Ireland and beyond will discuss matters ranging from the mundane to the profound in 1 auditorium and no religious prejudice will arise, And, of the 1 million speakers of Esperanto who are not subscribers to the services of the Universal Esperanto Assoc (whose professionally staffed world centre is in Rotterdam) I’d say that not one of them is linguistically prejudiced.

    I better mention too that not 1 interpreter will be needed in Lille

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Esperanto_Association

Leave a Reply