Fortune Green-Amakwe

1403277

SC520-7-SP Interview and Qualitative Data Analysis

Dr Isabel Crowhurst

Prof Michel Roper

Prof Colin Samson

The Limitations of Freedom of Speech

Organized Crime, Terrorism & Security 2014-15

Background

The gale of democracy blew emphatically across the world after World War II. Most of

the hegemon nations today practice this system of government because suffrage, an

inextricable part of democracy, places the power to rule a nation in the hands of the

citizenry. Liberty, equality, press freedom and the freedom of speech are the products of

democracy, agreed by many as essential for fostering steady growth and development of

societies. Thus super power nations advocate the democratic system of governance to

various undemocratic nations who have comparatively weak civil institutions owing to

government policies that clampdown on various media platforms such as the press,

internet etc. However, like every other element, democracy itself possesses its own

Achilles heel; though the secular nature of contemporary western and European societies

conflates seamlessly with the tenets of democracy, this compatibility does not seem to be

the case in conservative nations with rigid adherence to religion.

Furthermore, globalization has facilitated migration, resulting to a great number of

various Diasporas living in different parts of the world. The aetiology of this movement

is often economical and the movement usually occurs from countries with low living

standards to more affluent countries with stable economies. In this new world order,

affluent nations – such as the United States, Canada, France, Britain etc. – embracing a

liberal society, thus endeavor to enact domestic policies suited for a rapidly burgeoning

multicultural society. However, instilled cultures and traditions of new migrants are not

flung away on settling in their new progressive society, they tend to hold on to their

national norms, religion, culture and values. It is at this junction that things get turbulent

and a gamut of incompatibilities arises. This paper would concentrate on the dilemma of

the controversial freedom of speech a cornerstone of liberal societies and simultaneously

a not-so-admired tenet by the ‘others’ in European societies.

In other to get a somewhat objective outlook on this controversial issue, I interviewed a

Muslim to understand what the fuzz is about, to comprehend the controversy from the

viewpoint of a Muslim and to enquire for a possible solution to this quagmire. The main

theme of the interview centered on the recent shootings that occurred in Paris in which

gunmen barged into the office of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and shot dead

12 people. The heinous crime sparked global outcry and exacerbated already heightened

xenophobic and islamophobic sentiments awash in Europe. In my endeavor to shed light

on this phenomenon, I reflect on the methodological limitations of my interview. I draw

on pertinent scholarly literature in addressing my strengths as well as my weakness. Thus

the reader would be able to elicit from this text the dynamics of the interview as a

research method and a subjective perspective of the limitations of freedom of speech.

Introduction

Islam is one of the oldest and most practiced religions in the world. In fact, though

estimates vary on source, there are at least 2 billion Muslims living world wide, nearly

half of the world’s population. Hence it is inevitable that a significant number of

Diasporas would be Muslims. Prior to the tragic events of September 11, 2001 that

occurred in the United States in which the world trade center and some other strategic

structures were attacked resulting in massive death tolls, Islam had been perceived as a

holistic religion of peace, love, caring and giving. But these benign attributes of Islam

were doused and burnt after September 11; stereotypes were created as media and

political rhetoric on Islam became inundated with Jihad and radical Islam thus suddenly

all over the world, Muslims were perceived as public enemies. Compounding the

problems of Muslims further was their unwillingness to tolerate the secularity of their

societies in which being blasphemous was more often then not justified on the grounds of

freedom of speech consequently provoking confrontations between fanatics and

journalists as was the case in the Paris shootings.

The Interview

So far, as a non-Muslim, my observations has been from the outside, looking in. But my

prospective interview was an attempt to look from the inside with the help of my

interviewee. This was going to be the first time I ever conducted an interview thus I was

nervous as my first was going to be graded. As a meticulous individual I ensured I had all

the necessary items for the exchange. My tape recorder was set, my note pad was on a

clean sheet, a cup of coffee to sharpen my attention span, the room was dead silent but

my interviewee was yet to arrive. In the meantime, I rehearsed my questions repeatedly

and tried to foresee possible divergence that could arise during the interview.

Symbolic Violence

My interviewee was born and raised in Turkey, and a Muslim in his mid 20s. I would not

say that we are the best of friends, but I believe the existing degree of familiarity could

preempt any potential ‘violence’ that could have occurred during the interview.

I started the dialogue with opening questions that could set a context and gradually build

rapport as the interview progressed. I asked him for a description of the branch of Islam

he was adherent to, to get an idea of his Islamic background. He explains that he is of the

Sunni sect of Islam, which constitutes about 95% of the entire Turkish population. The

remaining 5% minority comprised of some Christians and the Alawites who adhere to the

Shia branch of Islam.

Unfortunately, transcripts do not convey the one or emotions behind words when read,

but at this stage I can affirm he was calm and exuded an unperturbed demeanor; this

eventually rubbed off on me relaxing me from my earlier state of tension to one of

composure.

Although our social positions forestalled any influence that could alter the dynamics of

the interview, mitigating any potential symbolic violence – if not eliminating it totally – it

did not render us interchangeable. I believe a certain specific in my person somewhat

impeded the interviewees’ absolute honesty. We were not interchangeable in the context

of religion, which was an inextricable part of our dialogue. I am a Christian, though

agnostic in practice, and he was very aware of my religious background. Even though

fanatics may exist in nearly every religion, many would agree Christianity in comparison

to Islam tends to be more tolerant to varying forms of dissent. Hence the reality of our

religious differences could have influenced his revelations. My point is adduced with the

following conversation.

I asked my interviewer what his interpretation of Jihad was; though he sounded uncertain

in his delineation, he explained to me that the term started a very long time ago and could

be also described as the fight for religion in which non-believers – Christians, Jews,

Buddhists etc. – were fought to advocate the supremacy of Islam over all religions as well

as expansion of Islamic territories. However, he was quick to add that the concept of

Jihad had changed over the years and had taken a less war-like philosophy. When I ask

him of its significance (Jihad) in contemporary times, he gives no specifics; he

acknowledges that the Jihad ideology is a powerful force that motivates a lot of Muslim

but he is not still enthused by it. Then he says “But I can know that, I can feel at this what

ermm”, at this point here, he tacitly admits his empathy for people who are inspired by

jihad, but when I desperately follow this up with the question, “So you can understand

when people are fighting in Jihad?” he quickly withdraws back into his shell, returning to

his initial position of reprehension, describing the idea as a very extreme, radical and

false interpretation of the Quran because Jihad in the archaic days referred to war

conducted in a battlefields hence killing innocent civilians not engaged in combat was

totally wrong.

Though I urged him prior to the interview to be as candid as possible, our different

religious inclinations probably made him reluctant to divulge to me his true inner

sentiments for fear of my judgment. On this context, it is likely that if his interviewer

were Muslim like he was, he would have been more communicative knowing fully well

that whatever he revealed could be a reflection of his fellow Muslim interviewer.

Against this backdrop, it was in my onus as the interviewer to portray to my interviewee

that I had temporarily assumed the social conditions of which he was a product of and of

which his opinions and dispositions are subject to. However, this is no easy task to

accomplish especially in our milieu of religious difference and an era of apparent

heightened islamophobia around the world.

Reflexivity

It is very plausible that my academic background – studying organized crime, terrorism

& security MSc. – as well as religious background, in conjunction with popular

stereotypical assumptions in society distorted my strive for objectivity. In fact,

introspectively, during the interview, I often anticipated certain answers from my

interviewer and in some cases unintentionally goaded my interviewer with questions to

elicit peculiar narratives that I ended up taking as truth. For instance, like I mentioned

earlier, when my interviewee narrates to me his opinion of jihad, though he explicitly

condemns it, the moment he made words and gestures that seemed like empathy, my

follow up question, “So you can understand when people are fighting in Jihad” was an

attempt to make him say more on that specific issue.

Such “effects one may unwittingly produce by that kind of always slightly arbitrary

intrusion which is inherent in this special kind of social exchange” (Bourdieu, 1996) can

influence – depending on the situation – an interviewee into suppressing or divulging a

response to a question. But on the bright side, many experts would agree that most

research are never truly objective and only through acknowledging that one’s social

background, perception of the research topic, consciousness or even the relationship

between interviewer and interviewee, are capable of influencing the dynamics of a

research, is that oneself closer to being objective. Thus self-scrutiny should be an

indispensable part of the entire research process that enables one to learn about oneself as

well as the respondent and further understand how both parties unconsciously affect the

outcome of the interview. Hence this somewhat bias position I am revealing is an

unconscious action that occurred during the interview (becoming aware of it only after

listening to the tape and analyzing the transcript) despite the fact that I reflected on the

effect my background and personality could have on the entire process.

Limitations

As the interview progressed, I began to read apathy in the body language of my

interviewee. He began to provide relatively brief answers to my questions, constantly

looking at his watch for time, restlessly and unconsciously tapping the table gently.

Perhaps my interpretation of my interviewees’ demeanor as dispiritedness towards the

dialogue at this point was wrong; though I was short of options for a potential participant

to this social inquiry owing to the sensitivity of the topic thus ending up with a

respondent short of the ingrained characteristics I envisaged in my interviewee, my

current interlocutors’ religious background, nationality and disposition to political

science which he currently studied at the University of Essex goaded my intuition

towards his suitability. As Bourdieu noted in understanding, it was very important that

“the interview and the situation itself have a meaning for the respondent ... that range of

problems, together with likely responses they evoke, is deduced from corroborated

representation of the conditions in which the respondent is placed and of which she is the

product”. Thus I believed his Islamic identity and academic awareness as well as my

academic background – taking the organized crime, terrorism and security MSc at the

same university – was a conflation that would facilitate dialogue evoking questions and

answers to the political and social issue this inquiry attempted to explore.

Prior to my interview, I pictured my interviewee as a devout Muslim – though, not

ascetic – immersed in the European milieu and directly affected – in terms of getting a

job, social welfare, housing etc. – by the growing xenophobic sentiments rising in Europe

as a result of the actions of radical Muslims. I must acknowledge that it was quite

difficult to get a hold of an individual fitting the description. Many I confronted with my

request were very quick to turn me down while others who insisted they had to

contemplate and get back to me, never did.

Perhaps, my choice of interviewee funded my challenges. In hindsight, my respondent

should have been immersed in the milieu that corroborates with my research area

probably then I would have been able to elicit richer narratives from his or her direct

experience of the phenomenon in question. For instance, when I asked my current

interviewee of how he believed Europe impeded or encouraged the practice of Islam, I

expected an answer more connected to him, perhaps an answer illustrated with an actual

life experience; Instead, I receive a very shallow and generalized response not to mention

being equivocal. Let me point out that I worded the question with both possibilities

“impeded or encourage” to preempt any assumptions the question could induce. Now that

has been mentioned, in my interviewees’ response, he articulates that Britain is a very

pluralistic society but Britain has problems with being assimilative. To ensure that we

remained on the same page, I seek clarification by asking what he meant by assimilative;

he explains to me that France has better assimilative immigration policies than Britain.

He then elaborates further with an example of a Pakistani finding it easier to integrate

into British society than a North African immigrant integrating into French society. I

quickly discern that his example was doubly contradictory to his earlier statement – in

which he says Britain has a problem with being assimilative and France has better

immigration policies. For fear of pushing him up the wall, creating a turbulent ambience

that could render the interview relationship adversarial; I overlooked the inconsistent

statements. Many would agree, “that the researcher should strive for rapport with any

informant to maximize the information that can be garnered from the interview, even at

the expense of downplaying or forgoing sensitive topics“ (Blee, 1993). Thus to sustain

the existing cooperation I was receiving from my interviewee I gently move on to my

next question.

The Jihadi Ideology

Owing to my academic background in terrorism, I already had some knowledge of Islam

vis-à-vis Jihad. However my interviewer’s perspective on the phenomenon was a

plausible facet that I hardly ever thought through or came across in any of my class

sessions. I asked my respondent what he thought about the terrorists’ ideology in which

coming to fight for them (terrorists) was the one true Islamic way. In his response, he

starts with the usual condemnation; calling the idea an extreme and radical one not

accepted by a good majority of Muslims around the world and only espoused very few.

As he gives the answer, silence ensues and an expression of deep thinking appears on his

face. This was one of the dreaded silent moments in an interview; I was torn in between

letting the awkward and uneasy silence linger or relieving the tension by forwarding

another question that could rekindle the lapsed conversation. I go with the former,

holding up my cards hoping he breaks the ice soon. And suddenly his eyes flash wide as

if he has just been hit with a brilliant idea. He then relays to me what he was brooding for

a while. He explains that another way he sees this radical ideology is “I think it is some

sort of different way of expression”. He explains that the current system of globalization

that has seen the proliferation of democratic principles across the world at the expense of

the beliefs and mores of non-democratic nations (perhaps Islamic nations) have churned

out such radical movements. And these movements could be interpreted as a form of

resistance to this global system. “Maybe it was an inevitable thing to face this kind of

resistance under this global system”. Despite this delineation, he still plays neutral by

maintaining that even in such contexts the ideology is an extreme one. “Islam maybe, can

be interpreted as a resistance but even in this term it is radical”.

Reflecting on his elucidation one could pick up more on what he was attempting to

allude. Many critics argue that democracy has been an imperialistic tool utilized by

western and European powers to take advantage of weaker nation states to secure their

economic and security interests. Although the democratic system of governance adopted

by these powerful countries have been perceived as the most effective in ensuring strong

civil institutions thus stable societies, inherent in these liberal attitudes is a complete

disregard for traditional beliefs which also reflect on their foreign and domestic policies

of which many Muslims believe has been selfish, condescending and aggressive.

The Paris Shootings

Earlier questions were a build up, to set the context before finally hitting the nail on its

head. In this case, instead of asking him a question, I make a statement.

Fortune: ermm, the Paris shootings (chuckle) the main part of this interview. They went

in and shot this people

Respondent: It is ridiculous…

He responds, but I quickly cut in to give more details to my statement. “… Following the

events, many Islamic nations rioted, not because they killed people, but because it was an

abomination to be producing caricature pictures of Mohamed”. In his response, he

stresses that there are different points of views. Although, he acknowledges that the

freedom of expression is one of the cornerstones of western culture and an important part

of democracy, however, from an Islamic perspective it is blasphemous to produce any

image whatsoever of Mohammed. “… Because in Islam there is no picture, there is no

any monument. You cannot draw or illustrate; you shouldn’t illustrate it”.

My respondent has been taking a neutral stance throughout this dialogue, carefully

maintaining a non-aligned position, implicitly countenancing the actions of both parties.

Since we were getting closer to the ending of this enquiry, I decide to up the ante and pull

him out of his comfort zone. I ask him if he is ok with the published caricature images of

Mohammed. He condemns it saying, such things have no place in Islam and cleverly

diverges by citing Christianity as an example. He says Charlie Hebdo mocks the pope

and other symbols of Christianity because it is not prohibited in the Holy bible – the

spiritual book of Christians. At this junction, I interject – not because I am a Christian but

to evoke further narrative from him – saying, although depictions of Jesus Christ is not

forbad in the bible, Christians are not actually comfortable with Charlie Hebdo’s

derogatory remarks. My respondent immediately replies, “But they accept it in their

society, because there are different cultures of freedom of expression and you know”. Far

from the careful generalized answers he was fond of providing, the last statement was

directed towards me as a Christian. Feeling a hostile miasma rising at this moment, to

avoid severing the not-so-perfect relationship established, I took that as an impasse and

moved on to my next question.

Plausible Solution?

My question goes a few steps back; I ask him that since he acknowledges the actions of

Charlie Hebdo to be wrong from an Islamic perspective, baring in mind that inherent in

western cultures is the right to freedom of expression, how then did he think the problem

could be addressed in society. In his response, firstly, he points out to me that the

perpetrators of the attacks were born and raised French citizens then he throws in a few

rhetorical questions saying, “why this people carryout this kind of acts, Why? That’s the

first thing to consider, why didn’t they get the chance to involve in the society? I think

that’s the important thing”. Though it was not in my remit as the investigator to answer

such questions that could risk manufacturing artifacts not conceived by the interviewee

further compounding the goal of objectivity, his response could be perceived as implicit

criticisms on French integration policies. His answer alluded to the fact that these

abhorrent acts were indicative of the low levels of both education and economic

achievement of young Muslims in Europe (Gurchathen & Suruchi, 2008) thus failing to

integrate these young French citizens rendered them social time bombs.

With his rhetorical question, he was deflecting the question back towards me, tacitly

compelling me to answer the question meant for him. Getting no explicit response, I try

another approach by rephrasing my question, “so you don’t think there is a solution to

this problem? Because some people believe that the secular society of Europe is not

compatible with Islamic traditions” This evokes a response in which he says “I think

from my perspective, this ermm radical Islam is the problem of this next century” he

elaborates further saying that warfare has changed in this century to an asymmetric one

and the west probably don’t have a choice than to confront it. In his proposed solution, he

says “. I believe from my perspective, this confrontation is inevitable. Under this

situation, there is little to do”. It was quite a pessimistic outlook of the matter and far

from the pacifist approach – encouraging European countries to adopt polices inclusive of

minorities – I thought he would have subscribed to.

Conclusion

It is important to note that interviews should never be used uncritically in the study of

certain social phenomenon because respondents may never reveal events as they actually

occurred or provide answers straightforwardly but as there imaginations have shaped or

believed them to be. Thus it would be very naïve of me to construe ideas or viewpoints

revealed by my interviewee as objective

Furthermore, a flaw on my part could be my approach to the interview process. My

method of conducting the interview could have suppressed vital information that would

have otherwise been elicited if performed in a less structured manner. My traditional

question-and-answer approach in which I control and set the agenda by asking the

questions and waiting for a response, could have subdued my respondent’s gestalt.

Gestalt – meaning that a whole is perceived to be greater than the sum of its parts – in

this context implies that interviewees possess rich information that could be evoked,

untainted in the form of stories rather than the ubiquitous question-and-answer approach

that constrain interviewees into providing abstract answers to our constructed questions.

Altogether, my interviewee did not meet up to my expectations but the entire dialogue

was not fruitless; my interviewee was able to enlighten me on the issue from the

perspective of a Muslim which many individuals harboring anti-Islamic sentiments today

are yet to understand. The official estimates of the size of the unity rally in Paris that

ensued the Charlie Hebdo attacks was over 1 million people, making it the biggest

demonstration in French history. Those numbers are indicative of how powerfully

invested millions are in the value of freedom of speech. However, historically satire has

been used as a tool to criticize those in a position of power and not those on the margins

of society. As my interviewee said, such depictions of the prophet Mohammed are

completely wrong “you cannot draw or illustrate; you shouldn’t illustrate it” and given

the systematic marginalization of Muslims in Europe and the west this creates a toxic

environment.

Finally, as enlightening as this social method of eliciting information was, I still remained

a bit doubtful of its ability to produce objectivity common to an entire populace. As I

mentioned earlier, nearly half of the world’s population practiced Islam, hence it would

be simplistic to interview an individual out of the existing billions in the hopes of

eliciting a holistic perspective or narrative that applies to all; Not that I doubt the efficacy

of interviews as a valuable method of research, many would agree that interviews could

be the best method “ used in order to find out about people’s experiences in context and

the meanings these hold” (Wendy & Tony, 2008) however I believe the requirements of

my course constrained its empiricism. If the research were at my disposition, I would

have conducted more interviews on Muslims from varying sects of Islam; only then

would I have been satisfied with the findings of this social inquiry.

Works Cited

Blee, K. M. (1993). Evidence, Empathy, and Ethics: Lessons from Oral Histories of the

Klan. The Journal of American History , 80 (2), 596-606.

Bourdieu, P. (1996). Understanding. In Explorations in Critical Social Science (pp. 17-

37).

Gurchathen, S., & Suruchi, T.-B. (2008, January 28). Methodological dilemmas: gate

keepers and positionality in Bradford. Ethnic and Racial Studies , 543-562.

Wendy, H., & Tony, J. (2008). The free association narrative interview method . In G.

Lisa, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods (pp. 296-315).

California.

Yow, V. (1997). Do I Like Them tto Much?: Effects of the Oral History Interview on the

Interviewer and Vice-Versa. Oral History Review , 55-79.