Ramadan: Inclusive perspectives for a real #UnionOfEquality
Ramadan: multicultural and inclusive perspectives
#UnionOfEquality
Last Saturday, 2 April, was a special day for Muslim people all around the world. This day marked the beginning of Ramadan, the most sacred month in the Islamic religion. A month of fasting, introspection, spirituality, and communion that will end on Sunday 1 May.
Some 25 million Muslims live in the 27 Member States of the European Union. This means there’s a good chance you or someone you know — a friend, a co-worker, a neighbor, your child’s teacher — may be celebrating it, fasting, and taking part in all other activities that are unique to this holy month.
#UnionOfEquality Guidelines for inclusive communication: the document that made people go crazy.
Last November, the European Commission came under attack for publishing an internal and external communication guide for EU officials. Its aim is to make sure that ‘everyone is valued and recognised.(…) regardless of their gender, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.’
The document was criticised for trying to cancel the “Christian culture”. The incriminating part which started the storm was a guideline referring to religion equality. It encouraged people not to assume everyone is Catholic. Hence, it advised the Commission to avoid expression like ‘Christmas time’ or Christian names like ‘Mary’ and ‘John’ in all examples.
It is worth having a deeper look at what it actually says and reflect on ways to create a more inclusive environment without removing any person’s freedom to celebrate their own culture.
#UnionOfEquality – European Commission Guidelines for Inclusive Communication
The 30-page guide on how to use more inclusive, gender-neutral, LGBTIQ+ friendly language in the European Commission (EC) was published on 30 November 2021. The work was coordinated by Maltese Hon. Helena Dalli, Commissioner for Equality of the EU.
The document was part of a plan championed by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Its goal is to implement a ‘Union of Equality’ so that everyone within the EU is valued without discrimination.
It tried to set common standards for inclusive communication. Among other things, it promoted the right use of gender-neutral language. It also encouraged the use of a language that considers the full diversity of cultures, religions, ethnicities, and ages within the EU.
Although the document was trying to address all types of non-inclusive language and representation – in perhaps a too prescriptive and too pedantic way – particular attention was immediately drawn to the religious aspect. In fact the EC was accused of trying to cancel Christmas and criticism to it was both abundant and harsh.
The reactions in Italy
Several Italian Members of the Parliament (MEPs), signed a parliamentary question to the Commission asking how it intended to “safeguard freedom of thought, speech and opinion for its own employees” and “showcase the European identity by promoting the Judaeo-Christian traditions, cultures, values and roots of the European Union”.
According to them, “the use of a new language that embodies a certain ideological and political vision of society while failing to respect the roots and traditions of the Old Continent” runs “counter to common sense and the cultural roots of the EU.”
On social media, criticism also poured down. Giorgia Meloni, leader of the far-right Fratelli d’Italia (Brothers of Italy) party, wrote on her Facebook page: “In the name of a twisted ideology, it wants to suppress the culture of a people. Our history and our identity can’t be cancelled, they must be respected.”
Even a former European commissioner and one-time president of the European Parliament joined in on the attacks.
Antonio Tajani, a close ally of former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, said on Twitter: “Long live the Europe of common sense!”, in a comment that came after the decision to withdraw the document for revision.
And on the right-leaning Italian newspaper Il Giornale, Francesco Giubilei wrote: “The European Commission wants to highlight that we should ‘avoid assuming that everyone is Christian’, as ‘not everyone celebrates the Christian holidays’, and ‘be sensitive about the fact that people have different religious traditions. There is an enormous difference between respecting religions and being ashamed of the Christian roots that underpin our identity.’
There is an enormous difference between respecting religions and being ashamed of the Christian roots that underpin our identity.
Finally, the Vatican also responded to the EC guidelines. Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican’s Secretary of State, told Vatican News that, although he believed “that the concern to erase all discrimination is right” and that it “must be translated into practice”, this is not the way to do it:
“In my opinion, this is not the way to achieve this goal. Because in the end we risk destroying, annihilating the person, in two ways. The first is the differentiation that characterizes our world. Unfortunately, the tendency is to homogenize everything. This without knowing how to respect even rightful differences, which naturally should not become a conflict or a source of discrimination, but should be integrated in order to build a full and integral humanity (…)
Then, there is the cancellation of our roots, the Christian dimension of our Europe, especially with regard to Christian festivals. Of course, we know that Europe owes its existence and its identity to many influences, but we certainly cannot forget that one of the main influences, if not the main one, was Christianity itself. Therefore, destroying the difference and destroying the roots means precisely to destroy the person.”
“There’s no point of talking about the right-wing exploitation” – Giulia Mezzetti
Giulia Mezzetti has been collaborating with the ISMU Foundation since 2014, participating in conducting international research and monitoring, evaluation and capacity building projects. She is also a post-doctoral fellow in Sociology at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart (Milan). She holds a Master’s degree in International Affairs from Sciences Po – Paris and an honours degree in Political Philosophy from the University of Milan. Previously, she worked at UNESCO in Paris and at the Centro Studi Politeia, where she conducted research on issues of corporate social responsibility, migration and global justice.
In an interview, she told us that she finds most criticism to be purely a political manipulation of the issue: “There’s no point in talking about the right-wing exploitation of the issue that occurred. It only partially reflects a genuine worry to lose one’s roots. Sociologists should study this sentiment (…) but the propaganda on the media and newspapers, is purely a political battle to make some noise.”
According to her, documents like these guidelines, which “force many European bureaucrats to open their eyes and realise their own implicit Eurocentrism and their own implicit bias”, are more than welcome, but they must be backed by other measures:
“On the one hand, it is necessary to raise awareness and have people open their eyes (…) It is indispensable. In my opinion, in order to be effective, a document like this one should come together with some ‘empathy’ training (telling people, ‘try to look at the world through someone else’s eyes). Otherwise, it runs the risk of always being mocked or implemented thorough cold procedures. Then it definitely runs the risk of becoming laughable. Or of being just ‘bureaucratese’, and not bringing real understanding nor adherence. It remains, however, a step to kick-start the imperative change.”
Mezzetti also believes that those who work in the sector should apply the common sense of “genuine interculturalism, really respecting and valuing cultural diversity”:
“If I say to my Muslim colleague or friend, ‘The days before Christmas are so stressful’, I’m sure they won’t get offended. They might be saying it themselves! It’s simply an indication of the time of the year. That same person would even wish me Merry Christmas. And I would do the same for Ramadan.
We shouldn’t cancel what characterises a specific (cultural as much as religious) affiliation or belonging. In a Europe which must recognise itself as plural, there’s nothing wrong if, as part of daily life or an everyday exchange, we naturally and inevitably refer to the ‘tradition’ of the place where we’re staying. It’s the same in Abu Dhabi, Cairo, Dakar, New Delhi, etc.
The sensitivities of people with different backgrounds can reach an understanding of each other only if the ground is set for it to happen through tools like these guidelines.”
Looking at the moon – A Commentary by Matteo Antonini
Matteo Antonini currently works as research associate at La Source School of Nursing, University of Western Switzerland, an institution that joined after having completed his PhD in social sciences at the University of Lausanne.
When he is not busy building Legos, he studies the relationship between beliefs and behaviours. He believes in the necessity of a strong federal Europe that needs to find its own solutions to climate change, new geopolitical equilibria, and the relationship between rights and identity.
An old adage says: “When a wise man points at the moon, an idiot looks at his finger”. This is the mistake we must avoid when commenting the “European Commission Guidelines for Inclusive Communication”.
Let’s start with a plain statement. The “European Commission Guidelines for Inclusive Communication” are a bunch of banal, widely-used, and sometimes pedantic suggestions. It’s by no means a dangerous or revolutionary document. So don’t focus on the finger (the guidelines) and let’s look at the moon: why do we have these guidelines and why are they so controversial?
The request for these guidelines, and for similar documents, is, paradoxically, a consequence of the changes that have happened in the last decades and that have modified European legislation towards more equal societies.
Few decades ago, discrimination was present in the law of the European countries and, partially, this is still the case.
Just to point at some examples: the UK Race Relations Act that explicitly bans racial discrimination was voted in 1965; Swiss women obtained the right to vote only in 1971; in France, women can work without their husbands’ permission since 1965, while the Swiss had to wait until 1988; homosexuality was illegal up to 1980 in Scotland and 1982 in Northern Ireland.
To those, we can add that fascist dictatorships existed in Portugal and in Greece until 1974, and in Spain until 1975, while many countries in South, Central, and Eastern Europe were under a communist dictatorship until the nineties. All of these regimes almost annihilated the rights of political and other minorities.
In the last decades, the battles for minorities’ rights has led to the abrogation of most of these laws. Now, the majority-minorities relations have entered into a new phase. Even if the fight to ban discriminatory laws – especially against the migrant and LGBTIQ+ communities – still continues, the idea that everybody should have the “same rights and same duties” is widely accepted in European societies.
This situation of equal rights and equal duties is called “formal equality”. The problem is that it’s something different from complete equality. Laws are not enough. To achieve complete equality, a change in culture is necessary. We must also compensate for the long-term effects of past explicit discriminations. At the cultural level, stigma and prejudices may nullify the effects of law changes.
For example, even if women are allowed by law to occupy any work position, prejudices about them being “unfit” for certain roles could keep them away from them. As for the long-term effects of past discriminatory laws, they are pretty straightforward.
Let’s take the interdiction to speak a minority language, an event fairly common in the past. Even if the language ban is lifted, people who dropped out of school or have suffered strong limitations in their careers due to being forced to use another language won’t recover the lost opportunities.
Given the removal of most discriminatory laws, the fight has now moved to the cultural battlefield. As sociology stresses, cultural representations are strictly linked to the language used, so fighting a cultural battle means, also, fighting a war on language. Many minorities and progressists stimulate a cultural transformation and go beyond formal equality by fostering a change in our language.
It is from these requests that documents such as the “European Commission Guidelines for Inclusive Communication” spawn.
Nevertheless, what should have been a smart, but quite lesser political strategy became one of the main points of friction between, on the one hand, minorities and progressive forces, and, on the other hand, conservative groups. This is due to the deep-rooted belief that language and reality are strongly linked together and that controlling the language means controlling reality.
This concept is so old that we cannot precisely retrace its origin. It was already well-established in the ancient Mediterranean world. As an example, we can mention Rome and its sacred secret name. Accounts say that the knowledge of Rome’s secret name would have led to a form of control over the city and this was at the centre of political events in the 4th century AD.
For similar reasons, the ancient Jews were prevented from pronouncing the Tetragrammaton. None can say the name of God as none can control him. Through Judaism, this belief was adopted in Christianity, even if in less strict terms. (do you remember the second – or third, depending on the tradition – of the ten commandments?)
Still today, people feel uncomfortable speaking about certain subjects. When they do, they make apotropaic gestures to avoid conjuring bad events.
Due to this presence in the European culture, the control of language is a sensitive subject for conservative groups too. And this even if they rarely are enthusiastic supporters of social constructivism.
The final outcome of the fight between different parts is still to be decided. And the effects on people’s everyday life of a change in language still have to be demonstrated. Will this effort lead to more equality? Or will it crystalize the society in antagonistic groups? Is formal equality an old concept that must be dismissed in favour of a more complete equality? Or is it a fundamental base that can never be sacrificed?
What appears to be clear is that these questions are key to any contemporary debate on majority-minorities relations. It needs to be addressed when discussing the support or the opposition to contemporary policies on this subject.
Multicultural and inclusive perspectives for a #UnionOfEquality
In an attempt to preserve a #UnionOfEquality, setting formal criteria regarding inclusive communication can sometimes be causing more adverse effects.
Language is critical to inclusion. The way we speak to and about people has an influence on how we treat one another. However, when taken too far to the point of avoiding sentences such as “Christmas time can be stressful” and instead of using “holiday times can be stressful,” perhaps the meaning and importance of inclusive communication has missed its mark.
It would be worthwhile to have members of diverse communities celebrate their cultures. They should be allowed to portray the commonality of values that each tradition shares with the others, rather than to risk alienating people.
This month can be a great opportunity to show how openness and inclusion toward all types of diversities is about engaging in a dialogue of mutual discovery and recognition.
Something as simple as wishing your Muslim friends or acquaintances a happy Ramadan will go a long way toward making them feel comfortable and welcome. If you want to show them you made an effort, you can learn to say the standard Arabic greetings “Ramadan kareem!” (“Have a generous Ramadan!”) or “Ramadan Mubarak!” (“Have a blessed Ramadan!”).
Ask your colleagues or friends that are not Christian what they celebrate and include this in your calendar. You can mention Ramadan at work and engage in discussion with colleagues about their traditions. Ask your Muslim colleagues and friends about what they do around Ramadan. Or invite them to participate and share some activities with the rest of the team.
Or simply incorporate little gestures of acknowledgment towards this special celebration. Be mindful if you share an office or are friends with someone fasting. Try to remember not to offer them a bite or a sip of whatever delicious meal you’re eating during this time. Maybe eat it in a separate room rather than at your desk. And if you need to schedule a meeting, try not to do it over lunch or coffee.
Finally, if you’re having a dinner party and you want to invite your Muslim friends, try to schedule it after sunset so they can eat too.
There are also plenty of events at local and international level that you can participate in. Before the pandemic, many Italian cities would organise a series of initiatives, such as Open Mosques and Iftar Street, for anyone interested in knowing more about Islam and its traditions.
Inclusion is not about “annihilating the person”. On the contrary, it is about creating the conditions for the person to show their true and wholesome self. During these special occasions, we have an opportunity to create a sense of belonging and mutual understanding.
Ramadan, as much as Easter, Hannukah or any other holiday, represents a great moment of dialogue. It is a chance to learn about our mutual cultures and share values of respect, inclusion, diversity and religion.