Ritual separation practices functioned as social integration rather than mere exclusion

Evidence

An important point to remember is that all such apparently antagonistic measures were at the same time vehicles of social integration. Between them, they defused the danger that a ‘foreigner inside’ cannot but present to the self-identity and self-production of the host group. They set up conditions under which cohabitation without friction was conceivable. … As long as they are effective, practices of separation do not need the support of attitudinal hostility. Reduction of commerce to strictly ritualized exchanges required solely devotion to the rules and a trained revulsion against their transgression. — Zygmunt Bauman, Modernity and the Holocaust, 127

Categorization

  • XREF: Directly relevant to the Islamophobia toolkit: the ‘foreigner inside’ concept and the idea that exclusionary practices can serve integration — parallels to how majority-minority relations get structured. — connects to: Exclusion ceremonies psychologically reaffirm the included members’ belonging; What a society excludes socially becomes symbolically central to its fantasy life; Exclusionary practices must be analytically separable from the ideology behind them — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 801 (+5 more)
  • DEEPTHINKING: Counterintuitive inversion: hostile separation measures are simultaneously social glue, and long-run friction-free coexistence needs no attitudinal hostility, only codified rules. This is a dense, paradigm-shifting idea.

Broader Connections