Difference Matters 

Elizabeth Chittock

School of Sociology and Social Work

University of Tasmania

Abstract

Religious tensions that arise with increasing globalisation suggest that many people do not understand, or manage well, the experiences and stresses that arise when encountering and adapting to the differences of Others’ religious symbolic worlds.  Although some individuals find Otherness interesting and even exciting, some, because of religious imperatives, strong convictions, and prejudices, will never want to know about, or accept, Others — or even others.  Successful adaptation to difference, as a requirement for globalisation for the common good, requires an understanding of the contestation that occurs between faiths and cultures regarding legitimacy, prioritising of values and practices, and of whose traditions and norms should take precedence.  It is an “ours or theirs?” scenario, through which the thesis of this paper directly addresses the issues of relationship, conflict resolution, and interfaith and inter-cultural dialogue.  Perceptions of O/others arise from personal religious identity and precede attitudes and actions as either acceptance of or aggression toward those O/others.  When perceived as threat, difference and O/otherness are interpreted as having the potential to undermine, change, or destroy one’s social world — one’s values, beliefs, norms, and traditions — and so, one’s identity.  However, where the practicing of dialogue, relationship, and co-operation between differing religious and cultural groups becomes normal, such normalising facilitates and fosters perceptions (and hopefully, then, the practices) of inclusion, thus reducing perceptions of threat.  As one’s environment changes, so too, may one’s perceptions; people may begin to understand O/others and perceive them as “different, but normal too”. 

Key Words: perceptions; O/otherness; religion; identity; fundamentality; plurality; familiarity; difference; interfaith; symbolic interaction.

Introduction

This paper derives from a larger sociological project — ‘Inter-Religious Interaction in Urban Australia:  the influence of religious-identity on perceptions of “the other”’ — which seeks to understand perceptions of the Other as they arise from religious identity, between Jews, Christians, and Muslims, in a globally-influenced Australian urban context.  Diverse religious expressions evolved from the shared genealogical and territorial heritage of these three universalising religions, which have a history of interaction that extends into the present day, includes diverse ethnic-cultural traditions, and, for some affiliates, includes the adoption of a fundamentalist stance (Bouma 1992; Lawrence, 1998; Thurow, 1996; Waters, 1995).  Although traumatic at times, early encounters between these symbolic worlds were relatively bounded and slow, allowing time for adaptation and integration.  The extensive and speedier present-day experience of globalisation, with its accompanying developments in information, communication, and transportation technologies, influenced the larger diasporas of each religion, bringing about interactions between differing symbolic worlds in a previously unprecedented way.  Difference, therefore, is encountered more frequently, in greater numbers, and in greater variety, resulting in less-defined boundaries, new contexts of interaction and relationships between these groups and wider dissemination of the varying beliefs and traditions (Kurtz, 1995; McLuhan, 1964; Urry, 2002; Waters 1995).  David Harvey’s (1990) description of time compression suggests that change occurs at such a frenetic pace that it leaves little time for adaptation and the necessary normalising processes that are related to integration and incorporation of newness during encounters with difference.  In the religious context, encountering difference will always be fraught with tensions during negotiations regarding truth, legitimacy, religious imperatives, rights and domination (Parsons, 1994), ways of living, and unfamiliar symbolism.  People attempt to control the boundaries of their social and symbolic worlds in order to maintain a sense of familiarity, order, and predictability (Berger, 1973; Gergen, 1991); they defend not only territory, but ideas, beliefs, practices, language, and traditions — their collectively-created, familiar, and maintained world.  This paper gives examples of challenges faced daily by religious affiliates in what some may perceive to be a “less-than-accommodating” Australian context; additionally some Australians express concern about the influence of non-conforming immigrants, who for economic or humanitarian reasons find themselves in unfamiliar and alien social worlds where norms, traditions, customs, communication, and values may differ from those of their familiar heritage.  The difference that matters is the experience of contrast between the familiar and the new (Heider, 1958; Peak, 1958), which for some threatens ways of living.  Although face-to-face interpersonal interaction initiatives facilitate an inclusive non-prioritising participatory environment — an approach to Otherness, in which the non-familiar may become familiar — cautions exist: not everyone supports dialogue or any form of acceptance of Others. 

In this project “Other” is defined as those with differing language, culture, ethnicity, and/or religion; “others” are those with in-common language, culture, religion, but differing denomination/sub-group affiliation; O/other is used where both categories are relevant.  This paper begins with a literature overview, outlines the methodological framework and methods, considers emergent themes from the data, and concludes with comments on the potential usefulness of interfaith dialogue between the three religions in Australia for relationship and conflict resolution.

I acknowledge, with gratitude, the willingness and generosity of participants: those who welcomed me into their worship and other gatherings; people who engaged in informal conversations; and the interview respondents who enthusiastically answered my questions, fed me, and enjoyed conversations beyond the interviews.  They all helped me to understand the challenges that exist, contributed to this research and accorded it importance as a worthy research topic.  Whether convinced of their own rightness and superiority, or more humbly accepting of their beliefs being “right for them but not necessarily for O/others”, each person expressed deep conviction, sincerity, and commitment to their own belief pathway, with which I was constantly impressed.  

Literature Review

Symbolic Interaction and Religious Identity

Religious worlds are symbolic worlds.  Symbolic interaction informs that symbols enable expression, communication, understanding and meaning (Charon, 2004), are created by humans, and are relevant within given social worlds, therefore facilitating daily interactions.  Interaction is a ‘mutual social process’ whereby individuals contribute to and interpret reciprocal communicative actions (Charon, 2004: 26).  When using symbols, it is expected they will elicit the same response and understanding in each person during any interaction within a given social world; the symbolic world as reality becomes a way of seeing and of living, as actions follow symbolic communicative gestures (Mead, 1934/1955).  Religious symbols are infused with meaning that offer more extensive messages than the actual object or gesture might indicate to the uninitiated, having no necessary intrinsic meaning or value, but are symbolically defined by humans during communication.  For example, prayer-beads made from some inanimate substance are understood as more than their composition.  Religious groups actively affirm and reinforce their beliefs, values, and boundaries through symbolic practices and discourses, such as worship routines and doctrinal texts.  When using the symbolic institution of language people are ‘actively involved in testing and reassessing their truths as they act’ (Charon, 2004: 33).  As society evolves people defend the known and familiar values with which they identify and which allow their ontological security: ‘what we are seeking for is a connection between our own value experiences and that social whole to which we belong’ (Mead, 1938: 478). 

Intrinsically bound with an individual’s understanding of religious self-identity are the intimately-familiar practices and understandings of the religious symbolic world into which one is socialised and that is also one’s reference group (Mead, 1934/1955; Shibutani, 1955).  Yet a reference group is not necessarily one’s membership group —it may be something to which one does not aspire (Newcomb, 1973).  One’s identity is, therefore, comprised of what one identifies with, and, in contrast to that outside of one’s own boundaries, what one is not.  When considering religious self-identity, the influencing components include (though not exhaustively) personal presentation, such as clothing styles (Goffman, 1969; Rubenstein, 2001); worship language (for example, Hebrew, Arabic, Latin); sacred texts; styles of music; temporal and spatial experiences, such as daily or weekly participation in worship in a designated building; rituals and ceremonies as collective action (McPhail, 2006); foods consumed or avoided; and the use of ambience enhancers, such as candles, incense, artworks, quotes and sayings and/or other ornamentations with practical or aesthetic functions.  Additionally, one identifies with God and God’s teachings as a reference-role-model, according to one’s perceptions of what God is and the teachings accepted.  Such components affect one’s senses and emotions; they “resonate” as familiar for affiliates, but “jar” those who find themselves in unfamiliar conditions by alerting them to the unfamiliarity, strangeness, and alienation. 

The life-long socialisation process occurs with each new encounter and experience; people learn about ‘patterns of interchange’ and how to use the information to act according to given social conditions, enabling social life to ‘proceed effectively’ (Gergen, 1991: 70-71).  In one’s known and familiar context, one ‘governs [one’s] own conduct accordingly’ (Mead, 1934/1955: 156) as one participates with the normality and “naturalness” of the routine.  The community with which one identifies is, for Mead, the ‘generalized other’; it has a set of commonly accepted understandings known to, and maintained by, all members (1934/1955: 154).  Social worlds are characteristically three-fold: they are unified, ordered and with ‘regularized mutual response’; each accords ‘reasonable anticipation of the behaviour of others’; and, each is an area of culture, ‘the boundaries of which are set…by the limits of effective communication’ (Shibutani, 1955: 566).  In other words, they are generally perceived and experienced as relatively safe and predictable places.  However, where migration or other factors results in an influx of difference, in the form of religious and/or cultural diversity, one’s ability to “take the perspective of the other” becomes diminished or even impossible.  Instead, one becomes aware of difference, contrast, comparison, and not-knowing.  Social order exists only where people can participate in plausible communication; if communication is disrupted ‘the world begins to lose its…subjective plausibility’ (Berger, 1973: 26).  The introduction of variant symbolic systems, which may also include one or more “alien” languages, potentially disrupts communication, identities, and the predictability of the social world, and so social order, as people negotiate difference in a community that no longer comprises only common understandings.   

Familiarity versus Encountering Difference

In this “global-village” context, Australia presents as one of the most culturally diverse countries (Bouma, 2006) where newcomers struggle to adapt to a world that may vastly differ from what is known and familiar to them, and with which they identify; existing residents must also adapt to the influx of change and difference.  As a theoretical concept, “familiarity” is salient to self-identity when encountering difference.  Firstly, familiarity is the frequent recurrence of ‘situations, gestures, [and] ideas’, the recognised set of patterns, where any changes are sufficiently minimal to be perceived as only providing relief from the repetition and which individuals experience as a sense of comfort and reassurance (Moscovici, 1984: 24).  Additionally, what is familiar to any individual becomes ‘the standard of reference [against which one compares] all that happens, and is perceived, against it’, and against which to evaluate ‘what is unusual, abnormal and...unfamiliar’ (Heider, 1958: 9; Moscovici, 1984: 24).  Understanding familiarity is essential when understanding identity, particularly in the emotive area of religious identity. 

Although Australia is understood to be religiously and culturally diverse (Ang, Brand, Noble, & Wilding, 2002) evidence exists of ambivalence in acceptance of diversity (Ang, Brand, Noble, & Sternberg 2006; Bouma, 2006; Cahill, Bouma, Dellal, & Leahy, 2004), institutional racism (Fesl, 1998), and even outright racism (Bringing Australia Together, 1998; Vasta & Castles, 1996).  It is also argued that most Australians perceive citizenship as if belonging to a family with the relevant strong bonds and loyalty, which ‘does not involve embracing diversity’ so creating a context where negotiation of difference is challenging; ‘most ordinary Australians expect migrants to live like Australians’ — that is, to assimilate (Betts & Birrell, 2007: 47).  The contrast of difference matters for such Australians.  When encountering the unfamiliar — that which differs from one’s normal repetitive environment — one evaluates whether it is acceptably exciting or stimulating, or perceived as potentially threatening.  People know about, but do not necessarily know O/others (Lofland, 1971; Simmel, 1950). In Australia, knowing about is institutionalised with mass media news dissemination and political emphasis of issues such as “national values” and citizenship eligibility: stereotyping of O/others is common.  Religious events and issues, such as conflicts between religious groups or globally-publicised leadership comments, affect conditions and relationships globally and in local contexts: additionally, macro and micro-levels influence reciprocally.  Perceived invasion by difference of one’s territorial and social world results in defence-posturing by individuals and/or groups as they resist Otherness and attempt to maintain boundaries (Cox, 2005; Mitchell, 2005), such as the recent attempts by Muslims to build an Islamic school in Camden (National Nine News, 2008; ABC News, 2008a & 2008b).

"We just don't want Muslim people in Camden," said one woman bedecked [symbolically] in an akubra hat decorated with Australian flags.

"We don't want them not only here, we don't want them in Australia. They're an oppressive society, they're a dictatorship." (ABC News, 2008a)

Newcomers in a social world where a religion other than their own is established as “the way” find themselves either integrating or marginalised, or marginalised even when they integrate (Armstrong, 2004; Simmel, 1950).  Yet also, those of and within that same social world will find themselves to be “other” to those who differ in denominational practice and emphasis.  O/otherness always exists, between and within religions, between and within subgroups of religions.  The experience of encountering Otherness compromises the anticipated predictability and orderliness of communication, as individuals and groups negotiate unfamiliar symbolic social-worlds, values, and practices, without a familiar frame of reference. The most intimate encounters, such as during marriages or funerals, become particularly challenging, as each group prioritises their own religious practices (Downman, 2004; Haddad, 2000; Tan 2003).  Upon encountering difference, it takes time to understand and normalise that difference, within oneself and/or one’s community.  Some will respect and appreciate difference; identity, as relative to the O/other, may be questioned and evaluated, and either consolidated in response to the recognition of difference, or relaxed to allow for incorporation of newness and self-modification.  Some may turn to a fundamentalist stance, to defend themselves and their religious imperatives from a perceived threat, and so resist any sort of change.  “How the O/other will impact on us” is an underlying consideration.

Methods and Methodology

When considering any research methodology, one discovers, again, the underlying sense of “otherness” — that oppositional either/or approach, in this research context, being Durkheimian positivist natural science versus Weberian interpretive social science — as researchers debate and justify their arguments regarding how one knows.  Yet, one’s knowledge is what one knows according to training, experience, interest, epistemological traditions, and personal prejudices and biases — ‘it is important to recognize that every researcher brings some sort of epistemological assumptions into the research process’ (Travers, 2001: 9).  Each researcher “knows” differently, develops different skills and functions, and, ideally, complements the other.  Here, exploration of “common-sense” understandings contribute to understanding the relationship between macro and micro levels, that is, perceptions developed by individuals about O/others, as influenced by their practices, associations and affiliations, and contextualising that understanding in the wider prevailing social influences, such as political and mass media representations of religious issues.  This is best achieved through the social science interpretive tradition of symbolic interaction, which enables the researcher to explore interpersonal interaction as symbolic communication between differing religious world-views and practices.  To this end, data for the larger project was collected from observations of worship gatherings of eight religious sub-groups — two Jewish, two Muslim, and four Christian — over a nine-months period; from 36 audio-taped in-depth one-to-one semi-structured qualitative interviews of religious affiliates; and from textual analysis of online blogs and mass media news representations of religious issues and events.  The methods complement each other and so provide a deeper understanding of the research considerations.  Participating in worship-gatherings informed and familiarised the researcher with the differing beliefs and practices from which respondents’ religious self-identities evolve, after which, in-depth notes recorded descriptions of worship and social practices, acts and actions, procedures, buildings, clothing, ethnicity, conversations, the researcher’s impressions, and whatever else drew the researcher’s attention: one is always positioned, both physically, and by influences such as religious understandings, biases, prejudices, interests, education, and ideology (Lofland, 1971: 111-113). 

Purposive sampling provided interview respondents from each religious sub-group.  The interviewing process of talking became a meaning-making experience as researcher and respondents questioned, clarified and evaluated the experiences, challenges, and implications, related to religious affiliation, identity, and everyday practices, in the Australian secular-Christian context, and so ‘teased out’ the multi-layered complexity of the varying understandings of difference and O/otherness.  Respondents’ subjective accounts, recollections, and interpretations of experiences, rather than experience itself, became the subject of analysis (Yamane, 2000).  Interviews were transcribed and explored for variations of respondents’ perceptions, of self, of others, and of the social context in which religious issues develop.  Mass media news representations provide insight into the macro-level context of Australia’s discourse and political influence on perceptions regarding religion and religious and cultural diversity. 

Data

This research examines the social implications of perceptions of the O/other that arise relative to religious self-identity when encountering difference.  Peak emphasises the importance of contrast (1958); people are “attuned” to similarities, but notice the differences.  This research finds that difference matters in areas such as one’s interpretation of what God is and requires; personal presentation; availability of certain foods; prayer-time needs; varying Sabbaths and social constraints; appropriate forms of socialising; holy days and holidays; legitimacy of moral values and legal practices; personal safety; religious imperatives; mass media and political messages; and stereotyping.  Many of these challenges exist for each Abrahamic religion, and/or some sub-group denominations.  Multiple and complex issues permeate encounters — and negotiations — with difference. 

As a participant observer in worship gatherings of eight differing religious groups I intimately encountered and negotiated difference.  Each gathering was ‘different’, ‘foreign’, and ‘O/other’ for me, not because I do not believe, but because I do not belong; I do not claim as my identity an affiliation with any religious group. I was also ‘different’ and ‘O/other’ for them and always the outsider, the O/other, in varying degrees, as is the case when any minority differs from the wider group understandings, yet I chose to be there.  During my observations in these unfamiliar-for-me contexts, I always arranged an ‘escape route’ in the form of adaptable clothing in my personal presentation — for the transition back to ‘my world’ — whereby I could alter the way clothing was worn in order to revert to the normal with which I identify.  I was apprehensive regarding any potential occurrence of negative sanctions associated with identities different from my own and was not brave enough to carry an unfamiliar identity into my familiar world.  I am ‘attached’ to my identity, and found myself more fully appreciating how others are ‘attached’ to what is important to them about their own beliefs, convictions and religious identities.  The differences I encountered as new for me are the heritage, choices, and life-identities for those with whom I participated; what I am is different for them (edited from Observation Notes of researcher’s experiences).

However, choosing to live in multicultural Australia where people have the right and freedom of and to worship does not diminish the difficulties associated with Australia being relatively non-accommodating of Otherness, and the need for negotiation of difference.  In practical terms, difference matters when, due to non-fluency of a locally-used language, people find themselves unable to communicate with almost anyone during daily interactions, which also impacts on productivity and earnings (Fan & Stark, 2007).  Also, when one’s familiar context becomes “invaded” by unfamiliar languages and cultures, one’s world becomes threatening, such as in the Camden example above.  Some immigrant Muslims found difficulty in obtaining accommodation because of their ethnicity, religious affiliation, and “differently-used” English language.  One mother with young children, in frustration whilst describing this experience, asked ‘Do they think I’ve got a bomb in my pocket?’ 

Personal safety is an issue for those who deviate from what is considered to be “normal” with personal presentation; some Muslim women found it was too dangerous to wear the hijab (head-scarf) after receiving abusive comments or being spat on.

...friends of mine who, since the trouble began, they all wear scarves and they have had really severe abuse, couldn’t leave their homes, you know, in certain periods when things were volatile, and it is quite dangerous — they’ve had stones thrown at their car as they’re driving along and all different sorts of things (Interview 21).

Similarly, safety issues occur when one is defined according to stereotypes that are based on prejudices fed by fear — fear of threat regarding Others.

I went to a school that was completely integrated and everybody was very friendly, except at Easter.  Kids I had gone to school with would torment me.  I remember, on the holidays, when my brother and friends from our street — during Passover — we would take long walks together, and we were attacked by a group of Christian boys— they came dashing at us — “Christ killer, Christ killer” — we were suddenly being ostracised, suddenly being attacked, literally of being attacked, and we ran fast.  But, I was a Christ-killer — me — 8 years old, I killed Christ!  (Interview 1).

For some religious affiliates, particularly fundamentalists (as in “attending to the fundamentals” of the religion — see Bouma 1962) in each religion, any non-compliance with religious imperatives and practices would be to compromise one’s potential eternal destiny.  Worship days, or Sabbaths, for Jews, Christians, and Muslims are workdays and/or socialising days for most of the rest of the population, so are not necessarily acknowledged as holy days.  It would seem that some must compromise their Sabbath in order to conform and comply with O/others’ (secular) values and norms (see also Bouma, 2006: 188-189).

It has impacted quite a bit in my study — where I was accused of not being committed because I wouldn’t attend classes on a Saturday and the Associate Professor stated “well I’m a committed Christian and I come for Saturday and Sunday’s work, I come in on a Sunday, I get somebody else to…” — he was in a band or something in church — “I get someone to stand in for me”.  And there’s no way I could tell him I cannot get someone to stand in for me on my Sabbath, I have to live it myself, I’m not doing it for anybody else, and so he said “well, I’m sorry” — he spent quite a long time telling me off, saying — “there’s no way you are going to do my course if you don’t show up on Saturdays” (Interview 6).

Additionally, much of Australia’s socialising revolves around the use of alcohol, which is not permissible for some religions or denominations, or around food which may not meet stringent vegetarian, kosher, or halal religious criteria, which excludes some people from certain social events — or challenges their ingenuity regarding participation.  The holy days of most religions other than Christianity are not celebrated as public holidays, so affiliates must plan religious obligations around the obligations of the wider social world.  Muslims, and some Christians, have the additional challenge of times of fasting, where those not of their faith continue with normal eating habits.

...when it’s Ramadan and we are fasting, I’ve let people know what I’m doing so that they don’t feel awkward if they offer me a cup of tea or coffee or some food [that I refuse]...and when you’re invited out to work celebrations or whatever, I don’t drink and I’ll even take a firm stance on not going to celebrations where there is alcohol, to the point of having discussions with CEOs and board members and directors and not telling them what I think they should do, but explaining to them that I think they should be open-minded about and respectful of the way other people are (Interview 20).

A major challenge for Muslims, particularly, in a non-accommodating context concerns the five-times-daily prayers, which may need negotiation of work schedules to provide time-slots, wash-place facilities for pre-prayer ablutions, and suitable space for performing the salat. 

I’ve also worked for Christian organisations that when they found I was Muslim every meal became a pork meal, and when it was time to pray they’d make sure that they put me on a shift so that I couldn’t pray.  But I think it really comes down to the individual and how threatened they feel by something that they really don’t understand.

 Where, in the past, just about all cultures found time to pray, all cultures found time to exercise their right of faith; it’s only this [Australian] culture that denigrates you if you bring up the name of God more than once in a sentence, or you want to find time to pray; they find that extreme, where in history that isn’t extreme and in other cultures that isn’t extreme, but they make a lot out of it in this culture and that’s where you do find this kind of society creates fundamentalists and it creates radicals because they are just trying to live the life that they’ve been told to live, but then everything that they try to do is quashed, and that creates a strain (Interview 20).

Difference matters when considering the varying interpretations of what God is and of what God approves — whether as a god of love, a loving God who encourages kindness, compassion, consideration, or peacefulness; or a god of war, a god who glorifies battle, martyrdom, and slaying the enemies in God’s name — their interpretations influence perceptions and then actions toward others who differ from their own ways (Armstrong, 2004).

Difference matters in legal areas regarding marriage, divorce, and many other areas (see, e.g. Haddad, 2000; Tan, 2003).  ‘Religions entail alternative authority systems and have a legal dimension’ (Celermajer, 2006).  Debates and struggles occur regarding legitimacy — concerning whose standards and perspectives should prevail; the structure of the monetary system; who has the right to speak for whom regarding legal or moral considerations; and how so many differences may be incorporated or reconciled within a single social world.  Difference matters in areas of education preferences regarding content, and inclusion versus exclusion.

Difference matters when the mass media sensationalise events and issues, to make difference explicit, and to create boundaries, alleging “what we are not” against the alleged “what those Others are”, as in the following news headlines examples: 

‘Minister warns Muslim polygamists’ (The Age, 2008)

‘Terror fear as extremists seek local Somali recruits’ (Zwartz, 2007)

‘Riot order: avoid Middle Eastern men’ (Clennell, 2006)

‘Iran's martyrs line up for suicide school’ (Herald Sun, 2006)

Those same boundary mechanisms also suggest who belongs and who does not — who are the insiders and who the outsiders. 

...you ask about Australian values, what are Australian values?  Is it about being tolerant, or is it about respect, because we all have that, so why do you have Australian values, or is it because you have barbeques on the weekend — we don’t know, none of us can tell what it is.  Is it that  you just respect each other and accept people the way they are — I didn’t know those are not Australian values (Interview 4).

The practice of unfavourable stereotyping of outsiders, in contrast with affirming and reinforcing the rightness and desirability of one’s own community and values, exists in all worship gatherings; this form of boundary maintenance contributes to community cohesion (Dempsey, 1990).  One “high-powered” denomination leader explicitly addressed the congregation about the risk of Others in Australia.  This experienced and influential speaker was keen to disseminate a strong message, is well-practiced at countering attacks against his position, and is convinced that the power of the Lord works through him.  He emphasised that Australia should be a ‘White Christian’ nation, so exemplifying the ‘exclusivist view’ that Bouma states is a characteristic of fundamentalism (1992: 61).  He opposes multiculturalism, religious diversity, homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia, prostitution, gambling, and ‘the interfaith movement’ — basing his beliefs on (his interpretation of) Biblical doctrine.  He opposed the not-sufficiently-Christian-religious Howard government and believes Australians ‘paid the price’ for voting in the wrong political party.  Observation notes of his comments and the researcher’s responses follow:

·  ‘There is a need for Christians to take back the nation’ — referring to the multicultural and religiously diverse immigrants.  He seems to be unaware that he is one of them, and that “his people” appropriated the country from the indigenous people.

·  ‘Christianity is the heritage and foundation of Australia’; Australia was intended by early white settlers to be a Christian colony.  Now, the Christian heritage is being destroyed; ‘the walls are broken down’ (referring to the Biblical story on which the sermon was based). 

·  He told of an English minister who spoke of the ‘white ants’ in Christian churches in England and that ‘the roof is falling in’ as they undermine the church with their humanism and insistence on interfaith dialogue; Christians in Australia should prevent the same thing happening here. 

·  ‘We have people moving in from all over the world — we should be evangelising them, then send them back to their countries to evangelize others.’

He seemed completely unaware of the irony of his sermon — he used the story of a sincere Jewish man to illustrate how Christians should behave.  He seemed unaware too, that he wants Australia to be “Christianised”, yet he also dislikes other forms of Christianity.

In contrast, some one-third of interview respondents, across the three religions, spoke of the enriching experience of multiple reference group affiliations — that is, where they actively identify with at least two groups, for example, Christianity/Judaism, Christianity/Buddhism, Judaism/Buddhism, Catholic/Quaker, Sunni/Sufi, Islam/Christianity.  Plurality is a characteristic of some individuals as well as groups.  However, although they appreciate difference, difficulties arose with some others within either affiliation regarding loyalty and commitment, and who attempted to influence the transitory individual to choose only one — preferably their own — affiliation.  Where the individual identifies with multiple reference groups simultaneously, conflicting norms and values can cause embarrassment (Shibutani, 1955), or other complications, forcing one to negotiate the vested interests and worship or doctrinal emphases associated with differing social worlds.  Yet these people illustrate the potential of transcending boundaries.    

Togetherness potential

Practices that are accepted as totally normal within one group may seem extreme to an outsider.  Many individuals do not sufficiently know about another’s religious social world and symbolic perspectives to know how that world is perceived, understood, and lived, by those O/others.  Yet, in order to communicate effectively when encountering difference, each must modify their own perceptions — that is, their interpretations and definitions of the social world with which they identify; each is affected by the O/other, as boundaries are not only fluid but sufficiently permeable for mutual and reciprocal information infiltration.  Some define this as risk: encountering O/otherness may influence one’s religious identity and commitment; exposure to difference influences the potential for questioning what one knows and what is normally taken-for-granted: 

…‘obvious’ lines of reasoning are obvious only so long as one’s identity remains fixed within a particular group.  The rationality of these replies depends altogether on the sharing of opinions…Yet as the range of our relationships is expanded, the validity of each localized rationality is threatened.  What is rational in one relationship is questionable or absurd from the standpoint of another (Gergen, 1991: 78). 

Interpersonal interactions during, for example, interfaith initiatives become entry-ways that facilitate understanding and relationships, and minimise conflict between people.  Entry-ways are transition points within any given boundary leading from one set of conditions to another different set of conditions, or between two differing perspectives of the same conditions.  The conditions may be physical, psychological, and/or symbolic, and may be described in terms of opposites, such as inside/outside, private/public, sacred/profane, safe/threatening.  They are conditions with specific meaning or relevance, especially to those who change their status with the transition of conditions as they pass through the “portal”.  Respondents in this research admit that much of what they know of Others of differing religions comes from media news stereotypes and sensationalism rather than knowing from actual interaction; many also made it clear they would like to know Others more directly, in order to understand.  Construction of identities, communities, and community focus or direction, occurs in the context of interpersonal interaction and exchange in the forms of participation and talking.  Face-to-face talking is immediate, involving much more than the words spoken.  Whether of incidental responses to daily happenings, or deep-topic discussions, there exists an exchange of ideas; talk facilitates reasoning, explanation, and justification.  During year-long participatory encounters, hosts and exchange students experienced on-going and mutual learning about the differences in their worlds — of differing physical and verbal cues, norms, gestures, and symbols: relationships were formed through communication, especially through the most important means of symbolic interpersonal interaction: talking (Clayton, 1984).  Between friends, conversation ‘nourishes our souls and satisfies many of our deep inner needs...[and] offers stimulation, support, and security’ (Littauer, 1998: 49). 

Within a religious context, a spoken greeting or gossip-type comment reveals insiders from outsiders (Heilman, 1998), as was also observed in this research project.  Any conversion process between denominations or faiths is an example of “shifting worldviews”; as people displace one discourse with a differing discourse, their understandings alter, until they perceive differently, redefine themselves in terms of the new discourse, and construct new identities and realities (Snow & Machalek, 1983).  Through talking, the processes of conflict resolution and interfaith dialogue proceed similarly — enthusiasts become “converted” to accepting different ways of thinking about, understanding, and acting toward those whose religious affiliation, beliefs and practices differ from their own.  They negotiate their identity and with what they identify.  As the environment changes, so do their perceptions, and their actions.  Where people question their own traditions and assumptions, alter their perceptions to account for otherness, and so act differently, that change in perceptions will lead to ‘dismantling of the traditional social structures which had maintained racial discrimination’ (Campbell 2004: 3); similarly with religion.  Talking, and symbol-use, such as the interfaith initiative slogan ‘Many Faiths, One Network’ (Interfaith Network of the City of Greater Dandenong, 1994), contribute to establishing actual and symbolic social networks.  Although leaders acknowledged the potential difficulties of working with Others, Rev. Malcolm Homes concisely summarised the alternative, by stating ‘We have no choice in the matter’ (Interfaith Network, 1994: 4).  Initial “talking together” created the reality of leadership co-operation, that lead to introducing a series of steps to expose congregants to the idea, and then the practice, of interaction with, and respect for, those from differing faiths, ethnicities, and cultures, so aiming to live in peace, harmony, and understanding. 

The first public action was to call our own people to prayer, in their own place in their own way, but at the same time, to offer prayer for each other, remembering that the others were doing this at the same time, and to pray about the same things, namely, offer prayer for the community in which we all live, and that prejudice and violence would be overcome (Interfaith Network, 1994: 17). 

Interaction is relational and reciprocal; the face-to-face talking-together portal opens a path towards reducing unfamiliarity.  When those of differing cultures, beliefs, and value systems mutually interact through talking and creating participatory events, something is shared — the interaction results in a “give-and-take” of understandings.  Diversity may become a little more diverse.

Conclusion

This paper highlights some of the challenges related to living a religious life in a less-than-accommodating context; finds that fear of threat, when encountering Otherness, contributes to antagonism as people attempt to defend themselves from the unknown; and fear of how difference-influence will, in real terms, impact on their own religious identity, norms, traditions, values, life-style, and worship practices.  Even within one’s home-place community, some perceive themselves to be potentially threatened by, or actually experience, dislocation that results from the introduction of difference and Otherness.  People do not notice similarities — similarities are the “taken-for-granted, the normal and natural” — they notice the contrasts, the differences.  The contrasts declare the differences that matter, the suggestion that communication will falter.  Wider, inclusive interfaith dialogue potentially encourages openness, mutual and reciprocal learning and trust, and facilitates deeper consideration of more complex issues.  Sensitively-conducted and respectful interfaith and multicultural initiatives that open opportunities for individuals and groups to interpersonally interact, without proselytising, to talk with (not only to or at) each other in face-to-face proximity, will facilitate dialogue, understanding, the building of relationships, and so, of active co-operation, rather than only co-existence or competition.  The more such interactions become normalised with co-operative leadership influence — within religions, in the political sphere, and in the mass media — the greater the potential for the example and experience of respect, acceptance, and appreciation of difference.  Involvement in such interactions enables people to see and think “differently” — the challenge is to involve those who do not want to engage with O/others.  Through interfaith interaction and education, difference — the unknown and unfamiliar — may become known and familiar, though different; interpersonal interaction enables knowing about you, through stereotypes, to become knowing you, from direct experience.  “Normal” is what is co-operatively practiced and accepted.  If interaction and social changes foster communication and promote harmony to create an inclusive and accommodating actual and symbolic environment, perceptions of what is considered to be normal, and then actions, will change accordingly.  Difference and O/otherness are normal — each is a fact of life.  Difference matters, but the way people approach difference — either with fear or appreciation — also matters.

References

Armstrong, K. (2004). The battle for God. London: Harper Perennial.

ABC News (2008a, May 28). Gillard backs council on Islamic school rejection. Retrieved 28 May 2008 from

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/28/2257907.htm

ABC News (2008b, May 28). Racism 'not behind Islamic school knock-back'. Retrieved 28 May 2008 from

 http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/28/2257535.htm   

Ang, I., Brand, J. E., Noble, G., & Sternberg, J. (2006). Connecting diversity: Paradoxes of multicultural Australia. Artarmon, NSW: Special Broadcasting Services Corporation.

Ang, I., Brand, J. E., Noble, G., & Wilding, D. (2002). Living diversity: Australia’s multicultural future. Artarmon, NSW: Special Broadcasting Services Corporation.

Berger, P.L. (1973). The social reality of religion. Ringwood: Penguin.

Betts, K., & Birrell, B. (2007). Making citizenship mean more. People and place, 15(1): 45-61.

Bouma, G. (1992). Religion: Meaning, transcendence and community in Australia. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire. 

Bouma, G. (2006). Australian soul: Religion and spirituality in the twenty-first century. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

Bringing Australia Together: The structure and experience of racism in Australia. (1998). Authors: Alwis, R., Brennan, F., Briskin, M., Chan, A., Dodson, M., Fesl, E., Huggins, J., Lachowicz, R., Lee, A., Mahlulo, M., McKellar, H., Mills, R., Moreton-Robinson, A., Reynolds, M., Soorley, J., Suter, K., Tannoch-Bland, J., Themal, U., Theophanous, A., Whitlam, G., Xynias, N. Compilation of essays derived from the Bringing Australia Together conference, October 1997. Woolloongabba, Qld, Australia: The Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action.

Cahill, D., Bouma, G., Dellal, H., & Leahy, M. (2004). Religion, cultural diversity, and safeguarding Australia.  Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and Australian Multicultural Foundation in Association with the World Conference of Religions for Peace, RMIT & Monash University. 

Celermajer, D. (2006). The tangled debate over religion and politics. Paper presented at University of Tasmania, November 2006.

Charon, J. (2004). Symbolic interactionism: An introduction, an interpretation, an integration. (8th ed.).  New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Clayton, L. (1984). When do you bow in Australia? Sydney: AFS Australia.

Clennell, A. (2006, February 4). Riot order: avoid Middle Eastern men. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 4 February 2006 from

http://smh.com.au/news/national/riot-order-avoid-middle-eastern-en/2006/02/03/1138958911068.html#  

Cox, L. (2005). Globalisation, border protection and the ‘new white nationalism’: Australia and New Zealand in comparative perspective. Paper presented at The Australian Sociological Association Conference, University of Tasmania, December 2005.

Dempsey, K. (1990). Smalltown. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Downman, S. (2004). Intra-ethnic conflict and the Hmong in Australia and Thailand. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia.

Fan, C. & Stark, O. (2007). A social proximity explanation of the reluctance to assimilate. Kyklos 60(1): 55-63. 

Fesl, E. (1998). Racism. In Bringing Australia Together: The structure and experience of racism in Australia. (1998). Authors: Alwis, R., Brennan, F., Briskin, M., Chan, A., Dodson, M., Fesl, E., Huggins, J., Lachowicz, R., Lee, A., Mahlulo, M., McKellar, H., Mills, R., Moreton-Robinson, A., Reynolds, M., Soorley, J., Suter, K., Tannoch-Bland, J., Themal, U., Theophanous, A., Whitlam, G., Xynias, N. Compilation of essays derived from the Bringing Australia Together conference, October 1997. Woolloongabba, Qld, Australia: The Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action.

Gergen, K. (1991). The saturated self. U.S.A.: Basic Books.

Goffman, E. (1969/1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. U.K.: Allen Lane The Penguin Press.

Haddad, M. (2000). Christian identity in the Jordanian Arab culture: A case study of two communities in North Jordan. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 20(1): 137-146. Retrieved 9 September 2005 from

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=54472792&Fmt=3&clientld=20931&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Harvey, D. (1990). The condition of postmodernity.  Oxford: Blackwell.

Heider, F. (1958). Social perception and phenomenal causality. In R. Tagiuri, & L. Petrullo (Eds.). Person perception and interpersonal behavior, 8-9.  California: Stanford University Press.

Heilman, S. (1998). A study in symbolic interaction: Synagogue life. New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers.

Herald Sun (2006, May 27). Iran's martyrs line up for suicide school. Retrieved 31 May 2006 from

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,19265054%255E663,00.html

Homes, M. (1994). Interfaith Network of the City of Greater Dandenong Springvale: Springvale City Council.

Interfaith Network of the City of Greater Dandenong. (1994) Springvale: Springvale City Council.

Kurtz, L. (1995). Gods in the global village. London: Pine Forge Press.

Lawrence, B. (1998). From fundamentalism to fundamentalisms: A religious ideology in multiple forms. In P. Heelas (Ed.). Religion, modernity and postmodernity (chapter 6).  Oxford: Blackwell. 

Littauer, M., (1998). Communicating through conversation. In F. Littauer, & M. Littauer, Talking so people will listen (49-60). Michigan: Servant Publications.  

Lofland, J. (1971). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis. California: Wadsworth.

McLuhan, M. (1964). The medium is the message. In M. McLuhan, Understanding media: The extensions of man. New York: Signet.

McPhail, C. (2006). The crowd and collective behaviour; Bringing symbolic interaction back in. Symbolic Interaction. 29(4): 433-464. 

Mead, G. (1934/1955). Mind, self and society from the standpoint of a social behaviorist.  Edited by C. Morris. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mead, G. (1938). Religion and social value.  In C. Morris, J. Brewster, A. Dunham, & D. Miller (Eds.), The philosophy of the act. Essay 26, 475-478.  Chicago: University of Chicago.  Retrieved 23 May 2008 from

http://www.brocku.ca/MeadProject/Mead/pubs2/philact/Mead_1938_26.html

Mitchell, R. (2005). The Long White Cloud and White Australia: An examination of ideologies influencing migration to New Zealand and Australia. Paper presented at The Australian Sociological Association Conference, University of Tasmania, December 2005.

Moscovici, S. (1984). The phenomenon of social representations.  In R. Farr, & S. Moscovici, (Eds.), Social representations (3-69). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

National Nine News (2008, May 28). Islamic school rejection 'racist'. Retrieved 28 May 2008 from http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=570408

Newcomb, T. (1973). Attitude development as a function of reference groups: The Bennington study. In P. Mott, H. Kaplan, G. Yelagotes, D. Pittenger & M. Riedel (Eds.). Sociological perspectives: Understanding human society (66-78). Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company. 

Parsons, G. (1994). Introduction: Deciding how far you can go.  In G. Parsons (Ed.), The growth of religious diversity: Britain from 1945 (5-21). London: Routledge.

Peak, H. (1958). Psychological structure and person perception.  In R. Tagiuri, & L. Petrullo (Eds.), Person perception and interpersonal behavior (339-345).  California: Stanford University Press.

Rubenstein, R. (2001). Dress codes: Meanings and messages in American culture (2^nd ed.).  Oxford: Westview Press. 

Shibutani, T. (1955). ‘Reference groups as perspectives.’ The American Journal of Sociology, 562-569.

Simmel, G. (1950). The sociology of Georg Simmel.  Edited by K. Wolff.  New York: The Free Press. 

Snow, D. & R. Machalek (1983). The convert as a social type. Sociological Theory, 259-289.  London: Jossey-Bass.

Tan, C. (2003). Tradition and Christianity: Controversial funerals and concepts of the person among the Paiwan, Taiwan. Oceania 73(3): 189-207.  Retrieved 17 September 2005 from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=522127631&Fmt=4&clientld=20931&RQT=309&VName=PQD

The Age (2008, June 25). Minister warns Muslim polygamists. Retrieved 25 June 2008 from http://www.theage.com.au/national/minister-warns-muslim-polygamists-20080625-2wki.html

Thurow, L. (1997). The Future of capitalism.  St. Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

Travers, M. (2001). Qualitative research through case studies. London: Sage. 

Urry, J. (2002). The global complexities of September 11^th. Theory, Culture and Society London: Sage 19(4): 57-69.

Vasta, E. & Castles, S. (Eds.). (1996). The teeth are smiling: The persistence of racism in multicultural Australia.  St. Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

Waters, M. (1995). Globalization. London: Routledge.

Yamane, D, (2000). Narrative and religious experience. Sociology of Religion, 61(2): 171-189.

Zwartz, B. (2007, April 13). Terror fear as extremists seek local Somali recruits.  The Age.  Retrieved 13 April 2007 from

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/terror-fear-as-extremists-seek-local-somali-recruits/2007/04/12/1175971264514.html

About the Author

Elizabeth Chittock gained a Bachelor of Arts in Sociology and Philosophy at the University of Tasmania.  Continuing at the University of Tasmania, in Sociology, she completed an Honours thesis entitled Social Constraints on the Expression of Spiritual Experiences, and is currently a PhD Candidate undertaking a project entitled Inter-Religious Interaction in Urban Australia:  the influence of religious-identity on perceptions of 'the other' .  Areas of interest include religious and spiritual expressions and identities; ‘othering’ — marginalisation and power; the environment and sustainable living; and the future of today’s children.

E-mail: elizabethchittock@hotmail.com