“Why There?” Islamophobia, Environmental Conflict, and Justice at Ground Zero - Patrick Sweeney...

1 23

Social Justice Research ISSN 0885-7466 Soc Just ResDOI 10.1007/s11211-013-0199-6

“Why There?” Islamophobia,Environmental Conflict, and Justice atGround Zero

Patrick Sweeney & Susan Opotow

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and all

rights are held exclusively by Springer Science

+Business Media New York. This e-offprint is

for personal use only and shall not be self-

archived in electronic repositories. If you wish

to self-archive your article, please use the

accepted manuscript version for posting on

your own website. You may further deposit

the accepted manuscript version in any

repository, provided it is only made publicly

available 12 months after official publication

or later and provided acknowledgement is

given to the original source of publication

and a link is inserted to the published article

on Springer's website. The link must be

accompanied by the following text: "The final

publication is available at link.springer.com”.

‘‘Why There?’’ Islamophobia, Environmental Conflict,and Justice at Ground Zero

Patrick Sweeney • Susan Opotow

� Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract Conflicts over environmental spaces that are sites of trauma or have

been designated as sacred involve questions about who has a legitimate stake in

determining the use of the site, and where the hallowedness attached to that space

ends. We examine these questions in a study of the 2009–2010 controversy about

the Park51 [sic] Islamic Community Center, sometimes called the ‘‘Ground Zero

Mosque,’’ to examine how issues of distributive, procedural, and inclusionary jus-

tice play out in a conflict over valuable land close to Ground Zero. This conflict,

though in a specifically fraught locale, speaks to resistance to mosque construction

in the USA and Europe. Using newspaper articles on the public debate as data

(N = 65), and performing a thematic analysis, we identified four key themes: (1)

views of Islam, (2) conflict, (3) American identity and ideals, and (4) proximity and

place. Utilizing Chi square analyses to examine the effect of propinquity on support

for Park51, we found that people living within New York City were more likely to

support Park51 than those outside of the city. Our conclusion discusses constructs

that link values, space, and social relations—hallowed ground, place attachment,

social distance—and discuss their relationship to justice. We argue that while

several kinds of justice are relevant, at its heart, this conflict concerns inclusionary

questions about who can speak, who belongs, and who should be excluded.

Keywords Environmental conflict � Distributive justice �Procedural justice � Inclusionary justice � Islamophobia � Ground zero

P. Sweeney (&)

The Graduate Center, City University of New York, New York, NY, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

S. Opotow

John Jay College of Criminal Justice and The Graduate Center, City University of New York, New

York, NY, USA

123

Soc Just Res

DOI 10.1007/s11211-013-0199-6

Author's personal copy

Introduction

On May 5, 2010, a community board meeting in Lower Manhattan that might

normally have been uneventful was the site of fractious controversy. A ‘‘raucous

four hour hearing’’ (Hernandez, 2010, p. A23) culminated in the approval of a

proposal to build an Islamic community center near Ground Zero. The heated

exchange concerning two adjacent buildings lasted 9 months. This conflict offers

valuable details about the intersection of justice and the environment in a unique

context, a site of historic and symbolic importance where World Trade Center

Towers 1 and 2 stood from 1973 until they were destroyed in the September 11,

2001 (‘‘9/11’’) attacks. This site of conflict reveals interconnections among 9/11,

Islamophobia, and the distribution of scarce spatial resources in Lower Manhattan.

Environmental conflicts over sites of memory or trauma surface questions about

who has a legitimate stake in determining the use of that site, and where the

hallowedness attached to that site ends. Focusing on justice issues within this

conflict, particularly procedural, distributive, and inclusionary justice, this paper

presents an analysis of this conflict as it was reported in New York Times articles

(N = 65) published from December 9, 2009 to September 21, 2010. These data

reveal that environmental and justice issues entwine in questions about the

boundaries of and values attached to a highly charged site that has been deemed

‘‘sacred.’’

Environment as the Context of Conflict

Environment is both the contexts in which we live and all social relations occur, as

well as a social issue in its own right (Opotow & Gieseking, 2011). It is a construct

with broad meaning, encompassing micro to macro contexts and built, natural, and

social–environments. Conflict exists whenever incompatible activities occur,

particularly activities that will prevent, obstruct, interfere with, injure, or in some

way make another action less likely or less effective (Deutsch, 1969). Conflict

occurs within and about particular environments. Here we study conflict about the

use of a particular environment—the area near Ground Zero in Lower Manhattan.

The conflict over the site near Ground Zero is similar to other land-use conflicts

which link social identities and meanings to specific geographic locales, generating

community dialogs about land-use decisions that can vary in intensity (Wester-

Herber, 2004; Harwood, 2005).

In recent years, conflicts over land-use in the United States of America (USA)

and Europe have flared over the construction of mosques (Cesari, 2005). In addition

to its practical function of providing Muslims with a space for religious services and

community activities, the construction of a mosque has importance as a symbolic

activity because it embodies the inclusion of Muslims in the public sphere (Sunier,

2005). Resistance to new mosques is often supported by meta-narratives in which

‘‘Islam is systematically conflated with threats to international or domestic order’’

(Cesari, 2005, p. 1019). Issues of national identity and questions of who belongs—

and who does not—play out in debates about appropriate use of space

(Triandafyllidou & Gropas, 2009). Conflicts about the construction of mosques in

Soc Just Res

123


the USA, from Long Island in New York State to Temecula in California have

invoked similar issues of inclusion. These conflicts are a rich source of data on how

justice is debated within a specific environmental context.

Justice and Environmental Conflict

Conflicts concerning the construction of mosques can be productively studied from

a justice perspective, because justice is at issue when there is a problem of

competing claims on a resource (Leventhal, 1979; Coser, 1956). Indeed, conflicts

are contexts in which concerns for justice emerge (Deutsch, 1985; Opotow, 1990).

In environmental conflict, justice issues that emerge include the distribution of

physical and social resources, the role of values in decision-making, conflict

management, and the inclusion or exclusion of marginalized groups and perspec-

tives (Opotow & Clayton, 1994; Opotow & Weiss, 2000). We primarily focus on

three key lines of psychological research on justice: distributive justice, procedural

justice, and inclusionary justice (Opotow, 1997; Clayton & Opotow, 2003).

Briefly, distributive justice concerns the allocation of physical and social

resources. It focuses on the fair distribution of such concrete resources as land and

elements of the built environment as well as such socially valued resources as social

status and rights (Deutsch, 1985; Foa & Foa, 1974). Procedural justice concerns the

fair application of procedures and rules to groups across time, including having a

voice in processes, the respectful treatment of those involved, and management of

conflict (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Thibaut & Walker, 1975). Inclusion in the scope of

justice concerns whether prevailing values, rules, and norms apply. Groups that are

marginalized or seen as outside the scope of justice may be seen as undeserving of

resources or fair treatment. Their material or psychological wellbeing may then be

seen as irrelevant and, instead, harm they experience may be condoned (Opotow,

1995).

Park51: The ‘‘Ground Zero Mosque’’

An article about the proposed Park51 Islamic Community Center (‘‘Park51’’)

published on the front page of the New York Times in December 2009, 5 months

before the furor that erupted at the community board on May 5, 2010, hinted at the

conflict to come. It noted that a supporter of Park51, Joan Brown Campbell,

interfaith leader and former general secretary of the National Council of Churches

of Christ USA, ‘‘acknowledged the possibility of a backlash from those opposed to a

Muslim presence at Ground Zero’’ (Blumenthal & Mowjood, 2009, p. A1).

Indeed, Blumenthal and Mowjood’s (2009) New York Times article marked the

beginning of a spirited and, at times, mean-spirited debate about the meaning of

9/11, Islam, and the Park51 Islamic Community Center. The article described the

proposed building as ‘‘unexpected,’’ ‘‘striking,’’ and ‘‘bold’’ (p. A1), while the

rebuilding of a Christian church in a nearby locale, even closer to Ground Zero, was

portrayed as expected, appropriate, and banal (Vitello, 2010, p. A16). While the

center became known to many as the ‘‘Ground Zero Mosque’’ (Barnard, 2011), it is

Soc Just Res

123


neither at Ground Zero nor is it technically a mosque. We use its official name,

Park51, in this paper.

Throughout the conflict, three key organizers of Park51 served as its public face:

Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam of a mosque nearby; Daisy Khan, Rauf’s wife and an

interfaith organizer; and Sharif El-Gamal, a real-estate developer. All three were

featured in and scrutinized by the media and held up as emblematic of what it means

to be Muslim in America. As conflict intensified, the appropriateness of the center

for a site near Ground Zero became front page news. For its supporters, Park51 was

a symbol of all that is right with Islam; for those opposed, Park51 was a symbol of

the dangers of Islam (Fig. 1).

Building Site: Geographic and Social Terrain of the Conflict

Park51 was planned as an interfaith community center open to all New Yorkers,

regardless of religion, modeled on the 92nd Street Y, a nonprofit cultural and

community center in New York City. Park51’s planners wanted its 13 stories to

‘‘rise two blocks from the pit of dust and cranes where the twin towers once stood, a

symbol of the resilience of the American melting pot’’ (Hernandez, 2010, p. A22).

They envisioned a building with two floors for Muslim prayer space. Other floors

would house a 500-seat auditorium, a theater, a performing arts center, a fitness

center, a swimming pool, a basketball court, a child care center, an art gallery, a

bookstore, a culinary school, and a restaurant.

As Low and Altman (1992) argue, the meanings and ideas attached to a place

inform the norms, rules, and regulations that govern how a particular site is used.

The story of the building’s shuttering due to the events of 9/11 contributed to

creating the background of cultural memories that were drawn upon by those

debating the future of the space. At this site, there are two adjacent buildings located

Fig. 1 Photograph of 45–51 Park Place, Photo: Susan Opotow

Soc Just Res

123


at 45–47 Park Place and 49–51 Park Place between Church Street and West

Broadway. The neighborhood, Lower Manhattan, is New York City’s center for

business and government. This site is just north of an area that was called ‘‘Little

Syria’’ in the first half of the twentieth century when the neighborhood around

Washington Street in Lower Manhattan ‘‘was the heart of New York’s Arab

world…Muslims, chiefly from Palestine, made up perhaps 5 percent of its

population. The Syrians and Lebanese in the neighborhood were mostly Christian’’

(Dunlap, 2010, p. A16). A church that served many from this Arab population, Saint

George Chapel of the Melkite Rite, still stands nearby at 103 Washington Street.

49–51 Park Place is a former substation of the privately owned energy company,

Con Edison, which supplies electric, gas, and steam service in NYC. The adjacent

building, 45–47 Park Place, is a five-story building designed by Daniel Badger in

the Italian Renaissance Palazzo style in 1857–1858 and built for a shipping firm

(Geminder, 2010). In 1968, after the ‘‘Arab-American community was almost

entirely displaced by construction of entrance ramps to the Brooklyn-Battery

Tunnel’’ (Dunlap, 2010, p. A16), the building at 45–47 Park Place was bought by

discount clothing retailer Sy Syms, becoming an early Syms store. When Syms

closed in 1990, the building was leased to the Burlington Coat Factory. This

Burlington Coat Factory store closed just after 9/11/01 when ‘‘out of a baby-blue

sky suddenly stained with smoke, a plane’s landing-gear assembly the size of a

World War II torpedo crashed through the roof and down through two empty selling

floors’’ (Blumenthal & Mowjood, 2009, p. A1). Since then, 45–47 had stood empty,

but in July 2009 it was sold to a real estate investment firm headed by Sharif El-

Gamal. To forestall the planned demolition of 45–47 Park Place to build the center,

anti-Park51 activists noted the building’s Italian Renaissance style architecture in a

complaint to the Landmarks Preservation Commission. The Commission did not

find the building’s architectural details significant enough to warrant landmark

status and voted 9–0 to deny historic protection to the building (Barbaro &

Hernandez, 2010).

Beyond the meanings attached to the neighborhood surrounding the buildings at

45–47 and 49–51 Park Place, this conflict also occurred within the hostile

sociopolitical terrain of post 9/11 Islamophobia in the United States. Islamophobia

is a term that came into use in Europe and USA in the early 1990s and is defined as

‘‘indiscriminate negative attitudes or emotions directed at Islam or Muslims’’

(Bleich, 2011, p. 1585). In addition to attitudes and emotions, Islamophobia can

manifest behaviorally. In the USA after 9/11, Islamophobia has manifested itself in

‘‘an unrelenting, multivalent assault on the bodies, psyches, and rights of Arab,

Muslim, and South Asian immigrants’’ that has included ‘‘restrictions on

immigration of young men from Muslim countries, racial profiling and detention

of ‘‘Muslim-looking’’ individuals, and an epidemic of hate violence against Arab,

Muslim, and South Asian communities’’ (Ahmad, 2002, p. 101). Hate crimes

against Muslims in the USA increased by 1,700 % in the year after 9/11, and anti-

Muslim attitudes, while relatively understudied in psychology, appear to have

increased following 9/11 (Khan & Ecklund, 2012; Sheridan, 2006). Media

representations of Islam in the USA after 9/11 have been overwhelmingly negative

and often linked to terrorism (Bilici, 2005). Given the ferocity of Islamophobic

Soc Just Res

123


sentiment in the USA, psychological researchers have urged that Islamophobia must

be taken into account when designing studies concerning Muslim Americans, and

furthermore declared that psychologists have an ethical responsibility to combat

Islamophobia (Amer & Bagasra, 2013). Our study conceptualizes Islamophobia as

part of the sociopolitical environment in which the current conflict occurred.

Method: Public Debate in the News

To examine the relationship between environment as embodied in this site and

justice as a contested construct, we examine newspaper articles as records of

conflict about this controversy. Our data consist of 65 articles, opinions, and

editorials published in the New York Times that discuss Park51 from December 9,

2009 to September 21, 2010.

Newspapers as Sources of Data

Newspapers are an important data source because of their in-depth coverage of

events, actions, and activities across contexts and over time. They set the agenda for

public discourse and shape collective representations of contemporary issues

(Nafstad & Blakar, 2012). The selection of events covered by newspapers and the

way in which these events are presented raise questions about bias and validity

(Barranco & Wisler, 1999; Earl, Martin, McCarthy, & Soule, 2004; Ortiz, Myers,

Walls, & Diaz, 2005). Nevertheless, newspapers are an unparalleled source of

information because they offer reports of events as they occur. They also influence

the public discourse as they are a source of information that can stimulate interest in

and shape opinion about contemporary events and social issues.

Although more commonly used in research in communication studies, political

science, and sociology, psychological research draws on newspapers as data,

particularly for studies of attitude change. Nafstad and Blakar (2012) conduct

longitudinal analyses of changes in language usage in newspapers to trace how

neoliberal individualist ideologies can obscure injustice. By studying word frequency

alongside contextual analyses of language usage, their approach is an unobtrusive

way to examine the creation and legitimation of ideology. Geschke, Sassenberg,

Ruhrmann, and Sommer (2010) examine how media coverage affects attitudes

toward social groups based on what and how events are reported. Their scholarship

analyzes the effects of bias present in content as well as in the rhetorical style of

newspaper articles (e.g., form, tone) written about migrants. Stewart, Pitts, and

Osborne (2011) study the construction of the concept of the ‘‘illegal immigrant’’ in

public discourse by examining descriptions of undocumented immigrants across a set

of newspaper articles. We use newspaper articles to investigate how issues of justice

and environment intersect in the public discourse surrounding the Park51 conflict.

The New York Times offers unparalleled access to the conflict surrounding Park51.

A ‘‘newspaper of record,’’ The New York Times meets especially high journalistic

standards, is internationally renowned, and influential (Salles, 2010; Martin &

Hansen, 1998). Because Park51 is located within the city in which The New York Times

Soc Just Res

123


is published, this newspaper offers unequaled coverage of the conflict in detailed

articles. During the 10 months of our study period, the height of the conflict, 14

different journalists reported offering an overarching institutional viewpoint.

Data and Analysis

To study the Park51 controversy, we conducted a Lexis Nexis search of the New

York Times using the descriptors ‘‘Mosque OR Muslim OR Islam AND Ground

Zero OR 9/11.’’ This generated 239 results that included articles not pertinent to the

conflict (e.g., unrelated election coverage, general discussions of Islam or 9/11).

Eliminating duplicate articles and those unrelated to this controversy resulted in a

final sample of 65 articles, op-eds, and letters to the editor. This sample was checked

for completeness by searching The New York Times website using the same

descriptors and also by checking our sample against the ‘‘Times Topic’’ page for

‘‘Park51’’ which collects all articles on that topic. These checks indicated that we

had identified all relevant articles on the Park51 controversy within the 10-month

period in which the conflict was most intense.

To identify the key themes in the 65 newspaper articles on this conflict, we used a

random number generator to sample ten articles throughout the time period of

interest. We read through each, marking key themes, comparing our findings, and

resolving inconsistencies. We repeated this process four times. We next compared

the themes for each of the four random samples. We found four themes recurring in

more than one sample and we used them to analyze the entire set of 65 articles,

allowing each article to be coded with at least one and up to four themes.

After presenting our findings on the four themes, we describe a quantitative

analysis that emerged from the data found on the relationship between proximity to

Ground Zero and support for Park51 (Table 1).

Results: The Park51 Controversy in the News

Our analysis of 65 articles in The New York Times yielded four key themes: (1)

views of Islam, (2) conflict, (3) American identity and ideals, and (4) proximity and

Table 1 Key article themes

Number

of articles

Percent of articles

containing theme (%)

Examples of topics

Theme 1: Views of Islam 44 68 Headscarves, terrorism,

suspicion, radicalism

Theme 2: Conflict 39 60 Fear, interfaith, compromise, anger

Theme 3: American

Identity and Ideals

38 58 Religious freedom, civil rights,

citizenship

Theme 4: Place 18 28 Proximity, hallowed ground,

defilement, public space

Soc Just Res

123


place. Each of our articles contained one or more of these themes, with an average

of 2.14; only three included all four themes. In this section we describe each theme

and, using one article to illustrate it, discuss its relevance in this conflict. The details

in the examples illustrate how the theme played out in the Park51 controversy as

well as how it is entwined with the other themes.

Theme 1: Views of Islam

Views of Islam, the most prevalent theme, was present in 44 of the 65 articles which

mentioned: terrorism, headscarves, Muslims, barbaric images, religious extremism,

collective guilt, meaning of Islam, jihad, radicalism, and suspicion. They reported

on competing views of Islam and debated the meaning of Islam’s ‘‘true’’ character

from the perspective of adherents and non-Muslims. Some of the speakers in these

articles positioned Islam as an inherently peaceful religion, while others positioned

it as an ideology linked to terrorism and violence. These articles centered around a

variety of flashpoints for conflict, incidents within the larger controversy that

exposed underlying views about Islam through debates over particular issues.

‘‘Dispute Over Ad Opposing Islamic Center Highlights Limits of the MTA’s

Powers’’ (Grynbaum, 2010), a New York Times article published on August 12, 2010

exemplifies the theme, Views of Islam. This article describes a controversy over an

advertisement (Fig. 2) submitted to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority

(MTA) for display on New York City MTA buses. It goes on to describe the MTA’s

history of rejecting obscene or deceptive advertisements, issues of Islamophobia,

radicalism, and the relation of Islam to 9/11.

The conflict emerged from an advertisement submitted to the MTA by the

American Freedom Defense Initiative, a national group vehemently opposed to

Park51. Their colorful advertisement consists of a horizontal rectangle featuring a

large headline asking ‘‘WHY THERE?’’ (capitalized). On the left side of the

advertisement is an image of the World Trade Center with an airplane about to

strike one tower while the other tower is engulfed in flames. On the right side is an

image of a building, presumably Park51, emblazoned with a star and crescent. A

double-sided arrow near the bottom of the ad links the two buildings. Next to the

image on the left are the capitalized words ‘‘SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 WTC JIHAD

ATTACK,’’ and accompanying the image on the right are the words ‘‘SEPTEMBER

11, 2011 WTC MEGA MOSQUE.’’ Centered and below are the words ‘‘GROUND

ZERO,’’ set in capitalized red text with a yellow border, with a background of black

smoke.

Fig. 2 Anti-Park51 advertisement created by the American Freedom Defense Initiative

Soc Just Res

123


The article describes the controversy that ensued when the MTA ‘‘initially

rejected the advertisement as unsuitable, repeatedly requesting changes to the

photograph of the twin towers’’ (Grynbaum, 2010, p. A22). In response, a federal

lawsuit was filed by the group sponsoring the advertisement and its leader, ‘‘the

prominent right-wing blogger Pamela Geller, who argued that her right to free

speech had been infringed’’ (Grynbaum, 2010, p. A22). The group, which has

repeatedly provoked controversy, was already involved in a lawsuit against transit

officials in Detroit who had rejected a bus advertisement aimed at converting

Muslims, an ad that has already appeared on New York City buses. The ‘‘Why

there?’’ advertisement ultimately was displayed on city buses, but it was widely

regarded as inappropriate. New York City’s then public advocate, Bill de Blasio,

stated that ‘‘This ad crosses a line, and I can’t believe the MTA would allow it on its

buses’’ (Grynbaum, 2010, p. A22).

This article situates the intersection of the environment and justice in three nested

conflicts: the presenting conflict is within a municipal agency, the MTA, charged

with deciding what forms of speech are appropriate. A larger conflict is whether

Park51 belongs in its proposed site. At its root, the conflict is about the nature of

Islam and its place in the USA. The conflict over the advertisement is a site in which

issues of inclusionary justice are played out in a particular environment.

Theme 2: Conflict

The Conflict theme, the second most prevalent in our sample, was present in 39 of

the 65 articles. It emerged in mentions of constructive and destructive processes and

outcomes of conflict (Deutsch, 1973). Constructive processes and outcomes include:

consensus, compromise, interfaith cooperation, debate, forgiveness, cross-cultural

sensitivity, and how some groups have worked together to find solutions to their

differences. Destructive conflict processes and outcomes include: culture war,

anger, lies, misrepresentations, opportunism, Holocaust metaphors, hate crimes,

disgust, fear, and how groups clashed over Park51.

‘‘Planned Sign of Tolerance Bringing Division Instead’’ (Hernandez, 2010),

published in The New York Times on July 14, 2010, exemplifies the theme, Conflict.

Most articles in our sample cover conflict. We chose this one because it discusses

the deeply emotional nature of the Park51 conflict, the various groups involved, and

the expression of conflict at multiple levels (e.g., local governance to national

politics). This article characterizes the Park51 controversy as full of ‘‘deep divisions

marked by vitriolic commentary, pitting Muslims against Christians, Tea Partiers

against staunch liberals, and Sept. 11 families against one another’’ (Hernandez,

2010, p. A22). The article reports on a hearing conducted by the city’s Landmarks

Preservation Commission to decide whether or not to grant protected landmark

status to the building at 45–47 Park Place, a hearing with ‘‘bellicose discourse…on

full display’’ (p. A22). The article describes background of the conflict using words

charged with tension: ‘‘sacrilege,’’ ‘‘fury,’’ ‘‘vigorous opposition,’’ ‘‘offense,’’

‘‘intensity,’’ ‘‘hostility,’’ and ‘‘vitriolic’’ (p. A22), evoking the deep meaning that the

Park51 site has for many individuals and groups regardless of whether they support

or oppose Park51.

Soc Just Res

123


The article features quotations from members of two families. Each mourns a

relative who died on 9/11, and each has a different viewpoint on the proposed

center. These quotes mirror larger patterns of discourses seen across the body of

articles that contrast those for and against Park51. A family member on one side

says that the center would constitute ‘‘sacrilege on sacred ground’’; a family

member on the other says the center would embody ‘‘American religious freedom to

counter the extremism that came to the fore that day’’ (Hernandez, 2010, p. A22).

This article describes a major element of this conflict as opportunistic politicians

who have ‘‘latched onto the issue as a high-profile platform to attack their

opponents’’ (Hernandez, 2010, p. A22). For example, a gubernatorial candidate

called for an investigation into the center’s finances, an investigation that would

have to be carried out by his opponent, the state’s attorney general, who, in turn,

‘‘has rebuffed those requests’’ (Hernandez, 2010, p. A22). The article’s conclusion

highlights the perspective of Muslims, noting that many ‘‘were facing renewed

hostility’’ and ‘‘worries that life in the United States may continue to be clouded

with mistrust’’ (Hernandez, 2010, p. A22). Yvonne Haddad, a professor at the

Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, states that

‘‘building mosques makes a statement that ‘we [Muslims] are here and we are here

to stay,’ and some people would like to wish them away’’ (p. A22).

This article reveals the vitriolic, divisive, and politicized nature of the conflict

surrounding Park51. At the hearing of the Landmarks Preservation Commission,

itself a site of conflict, a larger conflict plays out: how space surrounding Ground

Zero should be allocated and used. This, like the dispute about the bus ad, is

fundamentally about the inclusion or exclusion of Muslims within the United States.

Theme 3: American Identity and Ideals

The third theme, American Identity and Ideals, was present in 38 of the 65 articles

in mentions of: full citizenship, civil rights, religious freedom, constitutional rights,

international view of USA, anti-discrimination laws, how USA laws and rights

apply in this conflict, and responsibilities and moral norms that are or should be

shared by Americans.

‘‘N.Y. Political Leaders’ Rift Grows on Islam Center,’’ published in The New

York Times on August 25, 2010 reports on two prominent elected officials who each

articulate a different understanding of American values to oppose or support Park51

(Barbaro, 2010a). The article opens with a description of Sheldon Silver, New York

State Assembly Speaker, whose district includes Ground Zero, speaking at City Hall

and encouraging the sponsors of Park51 to find a different location. His remarks

were delivered on the same day that New York City Mayor Bloomberg spoke in

support of Park51 at a traditional Ramadan dinner at Gracie Mansion. Mayor

Bloomberg linked the controversy over Park51 to two aspects of what it means to be

an American: rights and ideals. ‘‘This is a test of our American values,’’ he said, and

moving ‘‘the center would slight American Muslims and damage the country’s

standing’’ (Barbaro, 2010a, p. A17). Speaker Silver also invoked what it means to

be American in stating that he believes ‘‘very firmly that our Constitution guarantees

us the right to freedom of religion and that includes the, obviously, the right to build

Soc Just Res

123


houses of worship’’ (p. A17). But then he urged sponsors of Park51 not to exercise

that right. For Speaker Silver, the hallowedness of the area surrounding Ground

Zero legitimates an exception to the normal application of American ideals, while

Mayor Bloomberg took the position that these ideals must apply without exception.

Describing the Mayor’s traditional Ramadan dinner at Gracie Mansion, the

article reports that the Mayor read an excerpt of words written by Feisal Abdul

Rauf, the Imam associated with Park51, in which Rauf describes his identification

with Jews and Christians. This scene—a Jewish mayor at a Muslim celebration

reading an Islamic religious leader’s words about cross-faith identification that were

written for the funeral of a Jewish journalist—implies that what it means to be

American is to support the ideal of religious diversity. The article reports that ‘‘the

mayor then seemed emotional…’’ and his ‘‘voice began to crack’’ (Barbaro, 2010a,

p. A17) as he recited a Hebrew prayer. Sharif El-Gamal, Park51’s developer, said

Bloomberg ‘‘touches my heart every time I hear him talk about our rights as

Americans and his brave and unwavering statements’’ (Barbaro, 2010a, p. A17).

This article describes American values and identity as it connects with religious

diversity and guarantees of religious freedom. Although both Speaker Silver and

Mayor Bloomberg appear to agree that religious freedom is a core American value,

this agreement is revealed as superficial when Speaker Silver argues that Park51’s

Muslim planners should not exercise their constitutional right to build the Islamic

community center near Ground Zero. In this article, the Park51 conflict is enacted

by two major political figures at two key sites of New York City government, City

Hall and Gracie Mansion, to debate questions of justice: who can exercise religious

freedom, who should not, who really belongs here, and in what locales.

Theme 4: Proximity and Place

The theme, Proximity and Place, was present in 18 of the 65 articles, emerging in

mentions of: proximity, hallowed ground, sacred space, distance, public space,

location, and defilement. This theme is attentive to physical distance, symbolic

spatial issues (e.g., where the boundaries of Ground Zero lie), and differentiating

sacred from secular space. The theme is evoked by questions about how far from

Ground Zero hallowed ground extends and whether, realistically, a mosque can

defile a neighborhood block that already includes an off-track betting establishment

and a strip club.

‘‘Debate Heats Up About Mosque Near Ground Zero,’’ published in the New

York Times on July 31, 2010 reports on conflicts over the meaning of space on the

periphery of Ground Zero. The article includes the perspectives of local and national

politicians, faith leaders, and family members of victims of 9/11 (Barbaro, 2010b).

Two Republicans, Rick Lazio and Carl Paladino, who each hope to be the party’s

candidate for governor in New York, spar over Park51. The Park51 controversy also

becomes a central issue in political campaigns outside New York City and State.

Readers are introduced to Ilario Pantano, a lesser known politician but the central

subject of the article and pictured in a full color photograph that accompanies it. Mr.

Pantano, a Republican candidate for U.S. Congress in North Carolina, has

Soc Just Res

123


‘‘campaigned on the issue [of the Park51 conflict], and says it is stirring voters in his

rural district, some 600 miles away from Ground Zero’’ (p. A1).

The article also includes views of leaders of faith-based organizations for and

against the center, and quotes from politicians currently running for office. Barbaro

offers the local perspective, noting that for New Yorkers, and particularly for

Manhattanites,

Ground Zero has slowly blended back into the fabric of the city…it is a

construction zone, passed during the daily commute or glimpsed through

office windows. To some outside of the city, though, it stands as a hallowed

battlefield that must be shielded and memorialized (Barbaro, 2010b, p. A1).

He suggests that there may be differences in how residents of Manhattan and

others across the country conceptualize the physical space and symbolic meaning

surrounding Ground Zero.

Residential Locale and Support for Park51

To examine Barbaro’s (2010b) proposition that support for and opposition to Park51

may vary by geographic distance from the site, we identified the residential locale

(in New York City, outside New York City but within New York State, or outside

New York State) for each speaker quoted in the 65 New York Times articles who had

a clear pro or con opinion regarding Park51 (N = 73). Speakers without a clear

position on the center’s construction or without a geographic locale specified were

excluded from our sample. We then conducted Chi square analyses expecting to find

differences among these different groups, in particular that speakers from outside of

New York City would be less likely to support Park51 than those from New York

City, and that those from outside New York State would be even less likely to

support Park51 than those within New York State (Table 2).

Our first Chi square test indicated that perceptions about Park51 differ

significantly based on whether the person resides in New York City, outside New

York City but within New York State, or outside of New York State, v2 (2,

N = 73) = 20.23, p \ .001. To further examine these differences, the Chi square

was partitioned into two components that allow us to see where the differences

between these groups lie (Rindskopf, 2005). Test 1 indicates that there is no

difference in perceptions of Park51 between people living outside New York City

but residing in New York State and people living outside New York State, v2

Table 2 Geographic analysis: position on Park51 and location

New York

City (NYC)

Outside NYC but within

New York State (NYS)

Outside

NYS

Total,

N

Number of speakers in support

of Park51

24 5 11 40

Number of speakers in opposition

to Park51

3 11 19 33

Soc Just Res

123


(1, N = 73) = 0.14, p = .713. Test 2 indicates a significant difference in

perceptions of Park51 between residents of New York City and residents of any

locale outside New York City, v2 (1, N = 73) = 20.10, p \ .001, showing that

those residing within New York City are more likely to support Park51 than those

residing outside of it.

Discussion: Understanding the Park51 Conflict

Throughout the duration of the Park51 conflict, the term, hallowed ground, was

repeatedly invoked to refer not just to Ground Zero but also to some of the space

that surrounds it. Borrowing from the Oxford English Dictionary (‘‘Sacred,’’ 2013),

we define hallowed ground as referring to a place set apart for or dedicated to some

purpose, entitled to veneration or made holy by association with an object of

consecration. In Svendsen and Campbell’s (2010) study of community-based

memorials to 9/11, they find that ‘‘in general, Americans are comfortable with

representations of the sacred extending beyond spaces designated to contain them

(e.g. churches, synagogues, mosques, cemeteries)’’ (p. 320). This leakage of

memory, affect, and reverence, what we see as sacred spillover, is crucial to

understanding the nature of the Park51 controversy. As in other environmentally

fraught sites, such as those contaminated with hazardous substances, the boundaries

of an emotionally fraught site such as Ground Zero are not immediately clear. Just

as radioactive material or other pollutants may spread far beyond an initial site of

environmental trauma, the question of how far is far enough away from a site of

emotional trauma may be difficult to measure.

How far from the physical border of Ground Zero sacredness extends was a

prominent and contentious issue throughout the conflict. Mayor Bloomberg, who

argued against moving the center’s site because it would not quell controversy,

satirically asked ‘‘How big should the ‘no-mosque zone’ around the World Trade

Center be?’’ (Barbaro, 2010a, p. A17). What makes some grounds hallowed and

where those grounds end is discussed in a Letter to the Editor of the New York Times

which noted that ‘‘sites of memory like…the Twin Towers include not only the

immediate buildings, but large swaths around them that I know from personal

experience aren’t measured in meters or yards, but in emotional sparks’’ (Aizenberg,

2010, p. A30). This notion of calibrating measurements using emotional sparks

resonates with four psychological concepts: place attachment, social distance, the

Gestalt construct of propinquity, and justice.

Place Attachment

Our data reveal that a major feature of the conflict surrounding Park51 are different

meanings associated with Ground Zero, recalling the construct, place attachment.

Studied by Low and Altman (1992) to examine human—place bonding, place

attachment is an integrative construct connecting the affective, cognitive, and

behavioral attachments of different actors who are embedded in social relationships

and to places over time. Low and Altman recognize that ‘‘attachments may not be to

Soc Just Res

123


landscapes solely as physical entities, but may be primarily associated with the

meanings of and experiences in a place – which often involve relationships with

other people’’ (p. 7). Meanings associated with a place can also shift over time in

response to relocation, environmental disasters, and other pivotal events (Low,

1992). Consistent with this influential line of environmental psychology research

(cf., Kyle & Chick, 2007), our study finds that a site on the periphery of the World

Trade Center in Lower Manhattan and its envisioned use brought into public debate

strong senses of place attachment, both retrospectively and prospectively, in support

and opposition, with strong affective, cognitive, and behavioral components that

entwined with passionate beliefs about values, fairness, and justice.

Distance

Distance played an important factor in all of the articles. We see three approaches to

understanding the meaning of distance as useful: social distance, propinquity, and

geographic distance.

Social Distance

In 1926, Bogardus operationalized the construct, social distance, to measure

‘‘fellow-feeling and understanding’’ (Bogardus 1926, p. 41). The scale he devised

included a listing of 5–7 statements that range from more to less fellow-feeling and

understanding, anchored by ‘‘would marry’’ and ‘‘would exclude from my country.’’

In his research, participants were asked to state which, if any, of the social

relationships on a list he provided they would approve for members of specific

ethnic groups. The scale has been translated into several languages and is widely

used in many countries to measure attitudes toward ethnic, religious, and other

minority groups (Wark & Galliher, 2007) (Table 3).

The interval categories Bogardus developed to measure social distance are

analogous to attitudes we found in our analysis of the 65 New York Times articles on

the Park51 conflict. We propose an adaptation of Bogardus’s five-point scale, which

we call the social–environment distance scale (SEDS), to measure people’s

willingness to allow a site within spaces they care about. Like Bogardus’s scale,

SEDS’s statements range from inclusion in kinship ceremonies to complete societal

exclusion. As Bogardus conceptualized foreclosing the possibility of admitting a

Table 3 Social and environmental distance scales

Bogardus social

distance scale

(Wark &

Galliher, 2007)

I would

marry

this

person

I would have

this person

as a close

friend

I would allow

this person

to live on

my street

I would allow this

person to be a

member of my

occupation

I would allow

this person to

be a citizen of

my country

Social–

environment

distance scale

I would

get

married

in a

mosque

I would visit

a mosque

regularly

I would allow

a mosque on

my street

I would allow a

mosque in my

neighborhood

I would allow

mosques in my

country

Soc Just Res

123


member of a particular ethnic or religious group into part of one’s life as indicative

of greater social distance, we conceptualize a similar refusal to visit a Mosque or

other site in one’s community to indicate greater social–environmental distance.

Similarly, if one is open to utilizing a site for deeply meaningful kinship

ceremonies, less social–environmental distance is indicated, paralleling Bogardus’s

anchor of least social distance in which one would marry a member of that group.

Consistent with Bogardus’ (1926) observation that ‘‘despite the physical proximity

of the city, social distance prevails’’ (p. 40); social distance and spatial distance are

not the same, nor is physical distance the same as psychological distance. What is

considered ‘‘close’’ or ‘‘far’’ varies across socio-environmental contexts. People’s

psychological representations of space are different from space as measured in

inches and miles (Tversky, 2003).

Propinquity

Regarding the siting of Park51 two blocks from Ground Zero, Abdel Moety Bayoumi,

a member of the Islamic Research Institute at Al Azhar, stated that ‘‘It will create a

permanent link between Islam and 9/11’’ (Cambanis, 2010, p. A12). His statement,

intended to caution against such a linkage, evokes the Gestalt Principle of Propinquity

(Bannerjee, 1994) in which two things that are seen as adjacent to each other are

perceived as related. The ‘‘Why there?’’ bus advertisement attempts to visually and

discursively forge a link between 9/11 and Park51 by placing the smoldering World

Trade Center Towers and a building supposed to represent Park51 next to each other,

rendered in an unrealistically similar size and in a similar shade of gray, captioned

with the parallel capitalized phrases ‘‘SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 WTC JIHAD

ATTACK,’’ and ‘‘SEPTEMBER 11, 2011 WTC MEGA MOSQUE.’’ The supposed

resemblance of the buildings and the textual analogy is underscored by a large double-

sided arrow connecting the two. These strategies attempt to collocate Park51 and 9/11

not only in the advertisement but also in the minds of viewers.

An article examining the parallels and discontinuities between the Park51

controversy and European mosque conflicts includes a quote from ‘‘one of the most

senior Islamic clerics in France’’ saying that ‘‘there are symbolic places that awaken

memories whether you mean to or not. And it isn’t good to awaken memories’’

(Cambanis, 2010, p. A12). Differing perceptions of whether the location of Park51

would awaken difficult memories appears to depend on where people set the

boundaries of Ground Zero and whether the meanings they attached to Ground Zero

preclude the presence of Muslims.

Geographic Distance

The two sites, Ground Zero and Park51, which are not necessarily linked become so

through advertisements, political propaganda, and public debate in the news. This

associative link may be more effective with some people than others, as indicated by

the Chi square analyses. New Yorkers seemed to have viewed the two sites as

discrete, while those outside the city saw them as connected. A more outsider (etic)

perspective of the conflict may only view Ground Zero and the future site of Park51

Soc Just Res

123


in relation to each other, ignoring the blocks between them and the wedding cake

producer, oncology center, espresso bar, carpet cleaning service, and other sites that

lie between. A closer (emic) view of the sites may see these two sites in relation to

the fabric of the city in which they are imbedded rather than as symbols with

antithetical meanings.

The wide residential geographic range of those quoted in The New York Times

demonstrates that the phenomena, place attachment, is not limited to places

individuals have lived in, currently live in, or places that are nearby, but that place

attachment extends to sites imbued with collective meaning and viewed as hallowed

ground. Our Chi square analyses of support for and opposition to Park51 and its

relation to geographic distance from the site suggest that those living within New

York City have a different conception of Ground Zero and its surrounding area than

those living outside New York City. The two-block distance between Park51 and

Ground Zero may seem insensitively close to people outside New York City, but

two blocks may be a greater distance to those who live in this dense urban

environment where each street has its own commercial and residential environment

and where neighborhoods may have tightly drawn boundaries (cf., Haberman, 2010,

p. A16). The concentration of support for Park51 from those living close to its

physical location and opposition for those farther away suggests that differently

situated individuals, ideologically and geographically, understand the meaning and

nature of a site from distinct perspectives. Thus, conceptions of justice can vary

depending on positionality, particularly from proximal and distal vantage points.

Justice

The question ‘‘How near is near?’’ although ostensibly a geographic question is

laden with important distributive, procedural, and inclusionary justice issues. We

discuss each of these justice contingencies in turn.

Distributive Justice

Throughout the articles, distributive justice questions are evident in statements

about valued social resources and questions of rights, deserving, and entitlement

attached to those goods. In the Park51 controversy, salient resources are land, access

to a public platform, and social legitimacy. Distributive justice issues are apparent

in debates and hearings that can allocate the permission to build on the plot of land

in Lower Manhattan, a valuable and scarce resource because of the high urban

density in Lower Manhattan. Distributive justice is also apparent in the value

attached to Park51, whether or not it is deemed a sacred site. Distributive justice

also plays out in having the power to disseminate information and be heard.

For example, the exchange between Speaker Silver and Mayor Bloomberg about

what it means to be an American concerns distributive justice in the ability of some

people and their positions to garner attention. Speaker Silver can speak at City Hall

and Mayor Bloomberg can host a Ramadan dinner at Gracie Mansion, and both

these events were deemed newsworthy and reported on by an international

newspaper, a valued platform for disseminating ideas and positions. From a

Soc Just Res

123


distributive justice perspective, these venues and this coverage are resources that are

not allocated equally or available to all. The anti-Park51 advertisement that

eventually ran on the sides of New York City buses makes a claim about justice that

literally moves through the urban environment and reaches millions of people. From

a distributive justice standpoint, this ad is a resource because it is a platform for

promulgating ideological beliefs.

Procedural Justice

Within the Park51 controversy procedural justice is evident in the processes that

ultimately allocated advertising space on buses and that rejected claims to landmark

status. These were formal procedures, but rhetoric at public events or in the media

also debate procedural justice issues that can shift public opinion about what

decisions are made and who will participate in making them.

The ‘‘Why there?’’ bus advertisement illustrates how distributive and procedural

justice are interwoven and feed into each other, amplifying privilege and resources in

the process. Those groups who already held access to certain privileges were able in

the conflict to magnify that privilege through formal and informal avenues. Procedural

justice involved formal challenges using or opposing laws, rules, and regulations, as

well as informal activities to influence popular opinion such as paying for an

advertisement, filing a lawsuit, and invoking claims to free speech. How one goes

about making claims about justice segues into what resources can be worked to one’s

advantage. And, relatedly, what resources one has influences how one can make

claims. Thus, we see distributive and procedural justice as closely linked in our data.

Inclusionary Justice

Inclusionary justice pervaded the debate in questions of who belongs and who does

not. The bus advertisement (Grynbaum, 2010) as well as other examples in our data,

such as the description of Park51 as ‘‘sacrilege on sacred ground’’ (Hernandez,

2010, p. A22) promulgate an exclusionary logic positioning Muslims as an outgroup

that should be excluded because they threaten America. The bus advertisement’s

implicit claims about Muslims connects them with 9/11 and connects Park51 with

bombing and terrorist-initiated destruction to quash Park51 with the more general

aim of excluding Muslims from the USA.

The four articles we chose to analyze in depth illustrate the larger tendency for

Muslim voices to be less prominent in our sample of 65 articles. Ordinarily, a site’s

developer plays a prominent role, such as Larry Silverstein, the developer of the

World Trade Center site. But the right of Park51’s developer, Sharif El-Gamal, to

take an active part in decision-making is rarely mentioned in this set of articles on

the conflict. This occurs while other people, such as Ilario Pantano, who lives and

works 600 miles away in North Carolina, claims this site as American and this

conflict as his own. These articles indicate that deeming a site hallowed can justify

excluding some groups from consideration or participation in the public debate

about the use of this space even when that group is centrally connected to that site.

The ability to define the dimensions of sacredness and what constitutes ‘‘sacrilege’’

Soc Just Res

123


can be powerful rhetorical tools to justify the exclusion of particular groups. In this

conflict, the social construction of sacredness interacted with the virulently

Islamophobic discourses present in the United States after 9/11 to depict the Park51

proposal as controversial and, consequently, debatable.

As previously noted, the three key organizers of the center were scrutinized in the

press, and some articles (e.g., Hernandez, 2010) featured the perspective of Muslims,

particularly the hostility and mistrust they faced. This seems contradictory: in some

ways, Muslim voices and perspectives were relegated to the margins while Muslims

were also hyper-scrutinized. As Sirin and Fine (2008) observe, after 9/11 Muslims in

the USA ‘‘were placed under suspicion, socially and psychologically, within the

nation they considered ‘home’’’ (p. 7). Citing Bhabha (2005), they describe American

Muslims as ‘‘‘over-looked’- in the double sense of social surveillance and psychic

disavowal’’ (p. 13). Similarly, our analysis suggests that an interaction of distributive,

procedural, and inclusionary injustice consistently positioned Muslims as peripheral

to and muted in the public debate even while they were scrutinized. Those who are not

considered to be ‘‘genuinely’’ American are rarely afforded the legitimacy to discuss

topics debated in the public sphere, even topics that deeply effect their individual and

collective lives; in this case, inclusion in or exclusion from American identity.

Park51 Today

As we write this paper, Park51 has not yet demolished the buildings at 45–47 and

49–51 Park Place to begin construction on the planned 13 story community center.

However, Park51 did open to the public on September 21, 2011 with a surprisingly

quiet and controversy-free public event, ‘‘NYChildren,’’ an exhibition of 160

portraits of immigrant children now living in New York City (see http://park51.org/

2011/10/nychildren_exhibit/). The 45–47 Park Place building now contains 4,000

square feet of renovated space that is used for weekly prayer services, interfaith

workshops, lectures, films, and exhibitions. Its website states:

Park51 will be a vibrant and inclusive community center, reflecting the diverse

spectrum of cultures and traditions, and serving New York City with programs

in education, arts, culture and recreation. Inspired by Islamic values and

Muslim heritage, Park51 will weave the Muslim-American identity into the

multicultural fabric of the United States. Park51 aims to foster cooperation and

understanding between people of all faiths and backgrounds through relevant

programs and initiatives (Park51, 2013).

Conclusion

Conflict and Justice on Hallowed Ground

As our thematic analysis indicated, this high-profile conflict over space engaged

deep divisions between different conceptions of the meaning of Islam, American

identity, and the appropriate use of space surrounding Ground Zero. It opened a

Soc Just Res

123


http://park51.org/2011/10/nychildren_exhibit/

http://park51.org/2011/10/nychildren_exhibit/

window into distributive justice and the resources at stake in the conflict, which

included claims to American identity, the site itself, legal rights and documents, and

public platforms to speak. This conflict also illuminated procedural justice issues

including formal decision-making processes such as approval by the local

Community Board and the Landmarks Preservation Commission, as well as

informal decision-making processes such as the court of public opinion. We saw

inclusionary justice at the heart of the conflict in fundamental questions about who

can speak, who belongs, and who ‘‘some people would like to wish… away’’

(Hernandez, 2010, p. A22). Our findings regarding residential location and support

for Park51 suggest differing conceptions of social–environmental space by

differently situated individuals, and would benefit from further study of how sites

of conflict are viewed from proximal and distal vantage points.

At the time of writing, resistance to the construction of mosques is continuing in

both the United States (Obeidallah, 2013) and Europe (ENAR, 2013), having

become a standard trope of Islamophobic discourse. Based on this study of the

Park51 controversy, ensuing debates over the appropriate use of those spaces will

involve questions of distributive, procedural, and inclusionary justice much like

those reported here. We see the psychology of justice has having important

applications in those conflictual contexts. Insights gained in this study at the

intersection of the environment and justice may generalize to other disputes over

places called hallowed ground that embody national or cultural history, memory,

and trauma including the usage or appropriation of sacred indigenous sites; the city

of Jerusalem and other religious sites. Such conflicts are likely to evoke questions of

who has a legitimate claim on determining the future of the site, how far sacredness

extends, and they will surely surface the question, ‘‘Why there?’’

Acknowledgments We thank Naomi Podber for her assistance, and we appreciate helpful comments on

an earlier draft by Dominique Grisard, Markus Brunner, anonymous reviewers, and the editors.

References

Ahmad, M. (2002). Homeland insecurities: Racial violence the day after September 11. Social Text,

20(3), 101–115.

Aizenberg, E. (2010, September 21). Muslims and the apology question. [Letter to the editor]. The New

York Times, p. A30.

Amer, M. M., & Bagasra, A. (2013). Psychological research with Muslim Americans in the age of

Islamophobia. American Psychologist, 68(3), 134–144.

Bannerjee, J. C. (1994). Gestalt theory of perception. In J. C. Bannerjee (Ed.), Encyclopeadic dictionary

of psychological terms. New Delhi: MD Publications.

Barbaro, M. (2010a, August 25). N.Y. political leaders’ rift grows on Islam center. New York Times, p.

A17.

Barbaro, M. (2010b, July 31). Debate heats up about mosque near Ground Zero. New York Times, p. A1.

Barbaro, M., & Hernandez, J. C. (2010, August 4). Mosque plan clears hurdle in New York. New York

Times, p. A1.

Barnard, A. (2011, August 2). Developers of Islamic center try a new strategy. New York Times, p. A21.

Barranco, J., & Wisler, D. (1999). Validity and systematicity of newspaper data in event analysis.

European Sociology Review, 15, 301–322.

Bhabha, H. K. (2005). Race, time, and the revision of modernity. In C. McCarthy, W. Crichlow, G.

Dimitriadis, & N. Dolby (Eds.), Race, identity, and representation in education. New York:

Routledge.

Soc Just Res

123


Bilici, M. (2005). American jihad: Representations of Islam in the United States after 9/11. American

Journal of Social Sciences, 22, 50–69.

Bleich, E. (2011). What is Islamophobia and how much is there? Theorizing and measuring an emerging

comparative concept. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(12), 1581–1600.

Blumenthal, R. & Mowjood, S. (2009, December 9). Muslim prayers and renewal near Ground Zero. New

York Times, p. A1.

Bogardus, E. S. (1926). Social distance in the city. Proceedings of the American Sociological Society, 20,

40–46.

Cambanis, T. (2010, August 26). Looking at Islamic center debate, world sees U.S. New York Times, p.

A12.

Cesari, J. (2005). Mosque conflicts in European cities: Introduction. Journal of Ethnic and Migration

Studies, 31(6), 1015–1024.

Clayton, S., & Opotow, S. (2003). Justice and identity: Changing perspectives on what is fair. Personality

and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 298–310.

Coser, L. (1956). The functions of social conflict. New York: Free Press.

Deutsch, M. (1969). Conflicts: Productive and destructive. Journal of Social Issues, 25(1), 7–41.

Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes. New Haven, CT:

Yale.

Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive justice: A social psychological perspective. New Haven, CT: Yale.

Dunlap, D. W. (2010, August 25). When an Arab enclave thrived downtown. New York Times, p. A16.

Earl, J., Martin, A., McCarthy, J. D., & Soule, S. (2004). The use of newspaper data in the study of

collective action. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 65–80.

ENAR. (2013). Racism in Europe ENAR shadow report 2011–2012. Brussels: European Network Against

Racism.

Foa, U. G., & Foa, E. B. (1974). Societal structures of the mind. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Geminder, E. (2010, July 20). 45 Park Place’s place. New York Observer. Retrieved July 6, 2013 from

http://observer.com/2010/07/45-park-places-place/.

Geschke, D., Sassenberg, K., Ruhrmann, G., & Sommer, D. (2010). Effects of linguistic abstractness in

the mass media: How newspaper articles shape readers’ attitudes toward migrants. Journal of Media

Psychology, 22(3), 99–104.

Grynbaum, M. M. (2010, August 12). Dispute over ad opposing Islamic center highlights limits of the

MTA’s powers. New York Times, p. A22.

Haberman, C. (2010, August 24). Ground zero: Its boundaries are elastic. New York Times, p. A16.

Harwood, S. A. (2005). Struggling to embrace difference in land-use decision making in multicultural

communities. Planning, Practice, and Research, 20(4), 355–371.

Hernandez, J. C. (2010, July 14). Planned sign of tolerance bringing division instead. New York Times, p.

A22.

Khan, M., & Ecklund, K. (2012). Attitudes toward Muslim Americans post 9/11. Journal of Muslim

Mental Health, 7(1), 1–16.

Kyle, G., & Chick, G. (2007). The social construction of a sense of place. Leisure Sciences, 29(3),

209–225.

Leventhal, G. S. (1979). Effects of external conflict on resource allocation and fairness within groups and

organizations. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations.

Monterrey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.

Low, S. (1992). Symbolic ties that bind: Place attachment in the plaza. In I. Altman & S. Low (Eds.),

Place attachment. New York: Plenum Press.

Low, S., & Altman, I. (1992). Place attachment: A conceptual inquiry. In I. Altman & S. Low (Eds.),

Place attachment. New York: Plenum Press.

Martin, S. E., & Hansen, K. A. (1998). Newspapers of record in a digital age: From hot type to hot link.

London: Greenwood.

Nafstad, H. E., & Blakar, R. M. (2012). Ideology and social psychology. Social and Personality

Psychology Compass, 6(4), 282–294.

Obeidallah, D. (2013, September 28). Fox host wants to take away my rights. CNN. Retrieved September

29, 2013 from http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/28/opinion/obeidallah-beckel-muslims/index.html.

Opotow, S. (1990). Moral exclusion and injustice: An introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 46(1), 1–20.

Soc Just Res

123


http://observer.com/2010/07/45-park-places-place/

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/28/opinion/obeidallah-beckel-muslims/index.html

Opotow, S. (1995). Drawing the line: Social categorization, moral exclusion, and the scope of justice. In

B. B. Bunker & J. Z. Rubin (Eds.), Conflict, cooperation, and justice (pp. 347–369). San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Opotow, S. (1997). What’s fair? Justice issues in the affirmative action debate. American Behavioral

Scientist, 41(2), 232–245.

Opotow, S., & Clayton, S. (1994). Green justice: Conceptions of fairness and the natural world. Journal

of Social Issues, 50(3), 1–11.

Opotow, S., & Gieseking, J. (2011). Foreground and background: Environment as site and social issue.

Journal of Social Issues, 67(1), 179–196.

Opotow, S., & Weiss, L. (2000). Denial and the process of moral exclusion in environmental conflict.

Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 475–490.

Ortiz, D. G., Myers, D., Walls, N. G., & Diaz, M. D. (2005). Where do we stand with newspaper data?

Mobilization, 10(3), 397–419.

Park51 (2013, July 6). Mission. Retrieved July 6, 2013 from http://www.park51.org/mission.

Rindskopf, D. (2005). Decomposition of Chi Square. In B. S. Everitt & D. Howell (Eds.), The

encyclopedia of statistics in behavioral science. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Sacred. (2013). Oxford English Dictionary online. Retrieved July 6, 2013 from http://www.oed.com.

ezproxy.gc.cuny.edu/view/Entry/169556?redirectedFrom=sacred&.

Salles, C. (2010). Media coverage of the internet: An acculturation strategy for press of record?

Innovation in Journalism, 7(1), 3–14.

Sheridan, L. P. (2006). Islamophobia pre- and post-September 11th, 2001. Journal of Interpersonal

Violence, 21(3), 317–336.

Sirin, S. R., & Fine, M. (2008). Muslim American Youth: Understanding hyphenated identities through

multiple methods. New York: NYU Press.

Stewart, C. O., Pitts, M. J., & Osborne, H. (2011). Mediated intergroup conflict: The discursive

construction of ‘‘illegal immigrants’’ in a regional U.S. Newspaper. Journal of Language and Social

Psychology, 30(1), 8–27.

Sunier, T. (2005). Constructing Islam: Places of worship and politics of space in the Netherlands. Journal

of Contemporary European Studies, 13(3), 317–334.

Svendsen, E. S., & Campbell, L. K. (2010). Living memorials: Understanding the social meanings of

community-based memorials to September 11, 2001. Environment and Behavior, 42(3), 318–334.

Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Triandafyllidou, A., & Gropas, R. (2009). Constructing difference: The mosque debates in Greece.

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 35(6), 957–975.

Tversky, B. (2003). Structures of mental spaces: How people think about space. Environment and

Behavior, 35, 66–80.

Vitello, P. (2010, August 24). Amid furor on Islamic center, please for Orthodox Church nearby. New

York Times, p. A16.

Wark, C., & Galliher, J. F. (2007). Emory Bogardus and the origins of the social distance scale. American

Sociologist, 38, 383–395.

Wester-Herber, M. (2004). Underlying concerns in land-use conflicts- the role of place-identity in risk

perception. Environmental Science & Policy, 7(2), 109–116.

Soc Just Res

123


http://www.park51.org/mission

http://www.oed.com.ezproxy.gc.cuny.edu/view/Entry/169556?redirectedFrom=sacred&

http://www.oed.com.ezproxy.gc.cuny.edu/view/Entry/169556?redirectedFrom=sacred&

“Why There?” Islamophobia, Environmental Conflict, and Justice at Ground Zero - Patrick Sweeney...

Documents

Transcript of “Why There?” Islamophobia, Environmental Conflict, and Justice at Ground Zero - Patrick Sweeney...