The Park 51/Ground Zero Controversy and Sacred Sites as Contested Space

Abstract

Abstract:The Park 51 controversy swept like wildfire through the media in late August of 2010, fueled by Islamophobes who oppose all advance of Islam in America. Yet the controversy also resonated with many who were clearly not caught up in the fear of Islam. This article attempts to understand the broader concern that the Park 51 project would somehow violate the Ground Zero site, and, thus, as a sign of "respect" should be moved to a different location, an argument that was invariably articulated in "spatial language" as groups debated the physical and spatial presence of the buildings in question, their relative proximity, and even the shadows they cast. This article focuses on three sets of spatial meanings that undergirded these arguments: the site as sacred ground created through trauma, rebuilding as retaliation for the attack, and the assertion of American civil religion. The article locates these meanings within a broader civic discussion of liberty and concludes that the spatialization of the controversy opened up discursive space for repressive, anti-democratic views to sway even those who believe in religious liberty, thus evidencing a deep ambivalence regarding the legitimate civic membership of Muslim Americans.

Anti-Social Networking

“…This might have been evident in the United States too in response to the furore surrounding the proposed "Ground Zero" mosque in New York. As Kilde (2011) noted, what began as an application for the construction of the "Park 51" Islamic community center in lower Manhattan in the summer of 2010 was soon latched onto by a whole host of different individuals and organizations that saw this as an opportunity to express their "hatred for Islam and their opposition to the growing Muslim presence in the United States" (p. 298). For opponents, Park 51 was symbolically transformed into the far more emotively and discursively charged "Ground Zero mosque."…”

“Partitioning the Sensible” at Park 51: Rancière, Islamophobia, and Common Politics

“…This focus elsewhere may occlude the extent to which, particularly since the summer of 2010, opposition to mosque development seems to have become a common organizing focus for racist and Islamophobic groups in the United States (ACLU 2010; CAIR 2011; Goodstein 2010; ICOM 2010). Thus, while Park 51's unique location “near” a site of national trauma undoubtedly accounts for some of the opposition that emerged (Kilde 2011), the extent of anti‐mosque activity raises broader questions about Islamophobia, racism, and citizenship in the United States.…”

“…Taking many Park 51 opponents at their word, a mosque project may have been acceptable had it been just a few blocks further away from the WTC site (eg Giuliani 2010). Here the physical proximity to the traumatic site becomes a key issue (Kilde 2011). Some mosque supporters were eager to argue that the mosque was actually further away than portrayed by opponents, suggesting, for example, that two blocks, in the context of a bustling city like New York, amounted to a much further distance than non‐New Yorkers might imagine (Haberman 2010).…”

“…Further the desire of center organizers to place the center near ground zero was, for many, evidence enough of its impropriety (with the logic being, if the organizers really were good, “moderate Muslims”, they would never have pursued such a plan). In this partitioning of the sensible order, only certain kinds of speech are meant to be heard and only certain kinds of forms meant to be seen at “ground zero”, as a site of trauma, mourning, and nation building (Kilde 2011).…”

“…Opposition to the center—initially called Cordoba House and later Park 51—quickly emerged in a number of places, from talk radio to the American Anti‐Defamation League (eg Foxman 2010). Some detractors challenged the right of Muslims to build a religious space “in the shadow of ground zero”; others merely questioned the wisdom of the project, in either practical or moral terms (Kilde 2011). Supporters often deployed tropes about tolerance and religious freedom, as well as private property rights, to defend the project.…”