From Public Images of Islam to Everyday Muslim Practice

Abstract

From public images of Islam to everyday Muslim practice. As the current debates on “Islam” and “Muslims” in Europe illustrate, social conflicts related to religious issues seem to attract public attention and become politicised relatively quickly. As European societies develop into a place of cultural and religious diversity in the context of global opening processes, voices are increasingly raised that propagate religious homogeneity in Europe and see the presence of Muslims almost exclusively as a problem. On the one hand, such homogenising interpretations are made visible, and it is shown how a decidedly negative image of Islam has emerged and how such rigid categorisations lead to the decontextualisation of religious affiliations and practices, which has a significant influence on the life constructions and positioning practices of those affected. On the other hand, biographical examples are used to illustrate how negative attributions to Islam and its adherents are perceived by subsequent generations, how they react to them, how they position themselves in the debate, and what strategies result from this to deal with them. The focus is on the experiences of those affected, i.e., the “knowledge of the people”, as a counterpoint to a “hegemonic knowledge” of Islam and Muslims.

1. Introduction: The “Other” Appears as a Category from a Eurocentric Perspective

In his book with the striking title Wer ist Wir? Deutschland und seine Muslime (Who is We? Germany and its Muslims), Navid Kermani (2009) explicitly warns against reducing people to their faith and thereby losing sight of the diverse and complex realities of life. For him, identities and lifestyles only make sense in the plural. “I am a Muslim, yes—but I am also many other things,” as Kermani succinctly formulates. He is right to criticise the decades-long debate on integration, which reduces immigrants to one-dimensional choices of either/or. “This ignores all the other characteristics and factors that are also important: where they come from, where they grew up, how they were educated, what they have learned” (Kermani 2009, p. 19).

Reducing people to a religious identity obscures crucial aspects of their lives: their experiences, the significance of religious orientation, their living conditions, and the multitude of biographically relevant factors that go beyond religious affiliation.

The first step is to explore how the hegemonic discourse on Islam has evolved historically and what role it still plays in public and academic contexts. In doing so, we draw on Edward Said’s concept of “methodological Orientalism”. We then present “contrapuntal reading” as a counter-concept and discuss its relevance for the study of the (religious) life plans and practices of people who have experienced discrimination and marginalisation. We then focus on the life practices and self-positioning strategies of the next generation, who deal with discriminatory and marginalising discourses and position themselves differently in this debate. These are people whose parents or grandparents immigrated to Austria, who were born and raised in Austria, and who define themselves as Muslims in different ways. Or they are seen as Muslims. The empirical findings are ultimately interpreted through the lens of subject theory.

Focusing on Austria enables an in-depth engagement with national discourses while simultaneously providing points of reference for transnational and European comparisons. This article constitutes a theoretical contribution. The biographical case studies included are not merely illustrative; rather, they form an integral component of a contrapuntal approach that intertwines theoretical reflection with empirical lived experience.

This article is a theoretical paper. The biographical case studies serve to illustrate and anchor the theoretical considerations. Finally, conclusions are drawn that may be relevant for future research in this context. The aim is to develop new perspectives for a critical examination of hegemonic discourses and their effects.

2. The Normative Power of Methodological Orientalism

Building on this theoretical positioning, the following section analyses methodological Orientalism not only as a discursive category but also in relation to current empirical experiences.

The concept of “methodological Orientalism” describes a theoretical framework in which the “West” perceives the “Orient” not as a differentiated empirical reality but as a construct of stereotyped, homogeneous categories. Originally developed by Edward Said in his work Orientalism ([1978] 2014) and further elaborated by scholars such as Erol Yildiz (2018), methodological Orientalism shows how Western knowledge and discursive practices reproduce a distorted image of the other, particularly of Islamic societies and Muslims.

Edward Said examined, among other things, the academic field of Oriental Studies, which deals with the Arab-Islamic world and whose findings have been widely incorporated into literature and art. He showed how an “orientalising” way of thinking emerged, based on binary ontological and epistemological distinctions. “Orientalism was a method of objectifying and essentialising the Other […] and thus an attempt to demonstrate the deep-rooted superiority of the Western world,” argues Immanuel Wallerstein (2007, p. 87).

However, Orientalism as an ideology does not function in isolation, but rather, much like racism, it functions as a comprehensive system of meaning that structures and classifies the world. As Stuart Hall (2018, p. 57) points out, any attempt to combat racism or mitigate its consequences depends on understanding the underlying system of meanings—and this is where the power of Orientalism comes into play. Such binary thinking, which defines the West as modern and superior and the other as a deviation from this norm, establishes a hierarchical structure that extends far beyond theoretical discourses into everyday life.

At the centre is the self-definition of the West, which positions itself as the universal standard through an idealised, “superior” self-image. This epistemological framework constructs the “Orient” on the basis of historically shaped ideas and stereotypes that do not do justice to the actual diversity, complexity, and plurality of non-Western societies. “Societies that do not conform to the styles and demands of European life are considered ‘backward’ in the development process of ‘modern consciousness’,” according to Walter D. Mignolo (2012, p. 72). In this context, he speaks of a “Eurocentric geography of knowledge” (ibid, p. 161). These are images that have fundamentally determined the relationship between the “West” and the “non-West” throughout history.

The “West” establishes a self-referential system of knowledge in which all non-Western cultures are measured against the standards of its own historical, cultural, and social developments, as the following quote aptly illustrates:

“The equation of world history with the Western world implies that Western historical consciousness has been and remains essentially self-referential. [In such an understanding of the world, all other societies joining modernity were—and are—determined to discover their future in the mirror of the Western presence”.

(Wong 1999, p. 54)

This quote shows that Western historical consciousness is understood as a universal norm, while other societies are devalued as deficient, backward, or “failed copies” of the West. This distinction is reproduced not only in everyday language but also in academic discourse, media reports, and political debates. Stereotypical images of Islam and Muslim lifestyles are presented as normative deviations, leading to generalisations and the de-individualisation of those affected. Similarly, Mohammed Arkoun (1992, p. 263) makes the following argument:

“The space and time in which collective perceptions were formed, in which one’s own self-conception was formulated, and in which formative worldviews emerged, have been significantly shaped and monopolised by Western reason, inscribed in a scholarly discourse that the West has led, shaped, and demarcated since the eighteenth century”.

The institutional embedding of this way of thinking has far-reaching social consequences. Discursive practices embedded in academic and media contexts have a direct impact on policies, educational approaches, and public debates. Empirical studies—such as the case studies on the living conditions of Muslim women in Austria in this paper—confirm that these Orientalist mechanisms have a lasting impact on everyday life and social positioning.

Overall, methodological Orientalism reveals how a discourse based on a Eurocentric self-understanding shapes the treatment of the “other”. The construction of the “Orient” as a deficient, homogeneous category not only serves the intellectual affirmation of the “West” but also manifests itself in real social exclusions and structural marginalisation.

To sum up, methodological Orientalism as an ideology constitutes the institutionalised social practice of constant differentiation between “us” (Christians) and “them” (Muslims). It is a concept that in the present refers not only to immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries themselves but also to their descendants, as the case studies in the empirical section of this paper show. From this perspective, methodological Orientalism is not a product of chance but a deliberate form of social power that is maintained through linguistic, institutional, and political practices.

2.1. From Foreign to Islamic Studies

The “guest worker research” of the 1960s, the “foreigner and stranger research” of the 1970s and 1980s, the subsequent research on Islam and Muslims, and the educational approaches to foreigners based on this research have all contributed significantly to the establishment and normalisation of cultural hegemony and racist worldviews.

Although established intercultural and inter-religious educational concepts have repeatedly called for a shift from deficit to difference since the mid-1990s (see Auernheimer 2012; Hamburger 2019; Radtke 2011), the Eurocentric and orientalising “us–them” attitude has hardly changed to this day. In this context, one could speak of a hegemonic intercultural or inter-religious gaze regime, which to this day, consciously or unconsciously, almost reflexively sorts people into categories according to constructed ethnocultural and religion-specific differences. Even the distinction between people with and without a Muslim background, which tends to be emphasised in a positive way, does not change the fact that these are still categorical and naturalised classifications that are handed down and shape the current image of society and the understanding of education.

2.2. Normalisation of Hegemonic Discourses

In his book Cultures do not speak, Frank-Olaf Radtke (2011) describes how problems or conflicts that are primarily associated with religion attract increased public attention and can quickly become politicised. Such politicisation can be observed in recent years, especially in relation to “Islam” or “Muslims”.

A striking example of this is the study by Wilhelm Heitmeyer et al. (1997), entitled “Tempting Fundamentalism”. This study analysed the so-called “propensity for violence of Turkish youths” in German schools. Even a close reading gives the impression that the results of this study were predetermined from the outset and served to confirm existing myths about “Turkish” youths and Muslims. This is underlined by this study’s conclusion:

“Overall, it would be a dangerous development for the integration of society as a whole if a largely de-traditionalised, secularised and functionally differentiated majority society were to come into confrontation with re-traditionalised, religiously and politically oriented sub-groups of a developing ‘parallel society’ of minorities”.

(Heitmeyer et al. 1997, p. 192)

This conclusion, which introduces the concept of an Islamic or Muslim parallel society for the first time, reveals a sorting logic that distinguishes between “us” (the de-traditionalised, secularised Christians) and “the others” (the re-traditionalised, religiously and politically oriented Muslims).

Studies by the Austrian pastoral theologian Paul M. Zulehner are also based on this way of thinking. He speaks of a “modern version of Islam” which, in his view, is supported by Muslims who have grown up in Europe. He sees this development of Islamic religiosity, which is oriented towards so-called modern European culture, in a positive light. At the same time, everything that is not identified as “European” is seen as a deviation from “Western normality”. This hegemonic knowledge serves as the basis for further academic observations, such as Zulehner’s 2011 quantitative study on “Churches in Ideological Pluralism” in Austria, in which Muslims were also interviewed. What is problematic here is how quickly generalised statements are made on the basis of such studies—even under the supposedly positive auspices of “dynamic change”. Muslims in Austria are reflexively categorised as “pre-modern” and generally associated with a religious “willingness to submit”. Zulehner describes this change as follows:

“The development of immigrant Muslims is extraordinarily dynamic. They come to Austria with an extremely submissive faith. Their attitude to life—as we can see from the example of gender roles—is strongly influenced by their ‘pre-modern’ home culture (mostly Anatolia). But already among younger Muslims of the first generation, and even more so among members of the second generation, this willingness to submit is disintegrating.”

(Zulehner 2011, p. 316f)

This binary pattern of thought, in which Western societies are seen as modern, highly developed, and progressive, while the “rest of the world” is seen as traditional and backward, gives Western modernity a universal status. This perspective positions all other historical experiences as deficient, pathological, or special (see Yildiz 2018).

A recent quantitative study by the Austrian Integration Fund (ÖIF) titled “What does Austria think? Attitudes towards home and belonging” is a prime example of how belonging and the ideas of cultural identity and religious affiliation are essentialised and politically instrumentalised under the aegis of the national. The title of this study already signals the generalising and nationalising perspective: the country of Austria is conceived as an organic totality, as if the country were a subject capable of thinking and acting. Although a closer reading of the results of this study allows for other interpretations, it seems to have been clear from the outset what results were to be generated and how they were to be interpreted. The majority of Austrians are concerned about the “cultural identity of the country”. The question of who is “Austrian” and who is not is not addressed in the survey. The main problem of why Austrians see their homeland, cultural identity, and values under threat also seems to have been established from the outset: a result of “migrants”, “Muslims”, and “refugees”. A total of 48% of respondents see Islam as having a negative influence on the “Austrian way of life” (Hajek et al. 2024, p. 20).

Similar hegemonic discourses can be found in Susanne Wiesinger’s book Kulturkampf im Klassenzimmer: Wie der Islam die Schulen verändert (Culture clash in the classroom: How Islam changes schools) (Wiesinger 2018). This book is based on generalisations and reproduces racist interpretations as well as a generalised problematisation of Muslim pupils. Wiesinger (2018, p. 63) legitimises the dramatising and alarmist depictions with concern for children and a rejection of false tolerance. However, this book uses racist patterns of argumentation. Existing injustices, for example, in the socio-economic sphere, are not analysed; instead, all problems are culturalised, ethnicised, and, above all, religionised. Deficiencies are not identified in and blamed on the system but rather in the student body. In an interview with the magazine Pragmaticus (Round Table 2024), Wiesinger reinforces this attitude and speaks of “apartheid” (2024, p. 13).

Christian Klar, the headmaster of a Viennese secondary school, makes similar comments in his latest book Was ist los in unseren Schulen? (What’s happening in our schools?) (Klar 2024). Without any colonial consciousness, he attributes human rights and Austrian democracy to Christian values and claims that the traditions developed by the Catholic Church “form an important part of Austrian identity” (Klar 2024, p. 183). With regard to individual self-determination, Klar’s attitude is reactionary. He seems to think little of allowing people to dress and style themselves as self-determinedly as possible because if someone does not dress in conformity, Klar argues, they must also bear the consequences (cf. 2024, p. 179).

2.3. Effects of Hegemonic Discourses

These and similar statements support the dominant concept of the contrast between the “Orient” and “Occident” as well as the idea of an alleged “clash of civilisations”. The generalising and homogenising discourse about the “integration problems” of the Muslim population and the retreat into “Islamic counter-societies” in opposition to the “Western ways of life” is emphasised almost constantly and without reflection.

It becomes clear how the dominant understanding of society is interwoven with nation-state and Eurocentric ideology. In this way, ethnic, cultural, racist, and Eurocentric interpretations are explicitly or implicitly transported. Stuart Hall (2018, p. 165) describes this as “implicit racism”, which makes institutional discrimination and racism a routine, taken-for-granted part of everyday culture (see also Gomolla and Radtke 2009).

The institutional context continually establishes boundaries and permanently visualises people as ethno-religious “strangers”. This way of thinking seems to have become normalised. The fact that the “other” appears as deficient and deviant from local norms is an effect of cultural hegemony (cf. Terkessidis 2004, p. 149).

The discourse on Islam, which emphasises ethnicity and difference, pushes social inequality and power relations into the background. Instead, categories such as ethnicity, religious difference, and disintegration dominate. Wolfgang Kaschuba describes this shift well:

“Without referring back to the economic and social logic of cultural phenomena, a tacit re-labelling takes place. ‘Social inequality’ is redefined and reduced to terms such as ‘modernity gap’, ‘cultural difference’, ‘social competence deficit’”.

(Kaschuba 1995, p. 16)

These power constellations determine which ways of thinking and speaking are possible and exclude other positions. Rancière describes the following:

“Public discourse structures what one sees and what one can say about it. It determines who is able to see and who is qualified to speak. It affects the characteristics of spaces and the possibilities inherent in time”.

(Rancière 2006, p. 27)

This power–knowledge complex, which Michel Foucault calls the Islam dispositive, functions as “receptive knowledge” in social practices (Foucault 1973). This historically formed discourse visualises people as a supposedly homogeneous group and identifies them as “foreign”, a “Paradogma” that is used as a prerequisite for further argumentation and is hardly reflected upon (Mitterer 2000, p. 11).

The more this “Paradogma” and the practices associated with it become established in areas of society, the more they become a habitual, unreflected matter of course in science and everyday life (see Markom 2014). This process of objectification has a normalising effect that reaches deep into everyday practice.

This established practice goes hand in hand with the de-subjectivisation of those concerned and the de-contextualisation of their realities. This makes it more difficult to understand the complexity of (Muslim) life-worlds and legitimises the mechanisms of exclusion and discrimination.

3. Contrapuntal Reading as an Alternative Concept

Contrapuntal reading (Said 1994), a key concept in the work of Edward Said, particularly in his study “Culture and Imperialism” (1994), is a method that aims to challenge dominant narratives, binary ways of thinking, and the invisibility of marginalised voices. It serves as a theoretical and methodological tool to uncover complex historical and cultural contexts that are often ignored in hegemonic discourses. It is not only about analysing and critiquing Eurocentric and Orientalising perspectives but also about identifying the resistance that arises from marginalised living conditions:

“The point is that a contrapuntal reading must take account of both processes, that of imperialism and that of resistance to it, which can be done by extending our reading of the texts to include what was once forcibly excluded […].”

(Said 1994, p. 79)

The term “contrapuntal” originally comes from music theory, where it refers to the interplay of different voices. Said applies this approach to literary and cultural criticism, calling for texts, stories, and narratives to be examined from multiple perspectives. The aim is to make the stories of the “marginalised” visible and to relate them to hegemonic Western narratives. The focus is on the intersections, ambivalences, and ambiguities of cultural or religious designs and power structures.

A central starting point of contrapuntal reading as a counter-proposal to methodological Orientalism and ethnocentrism is the deconstruction of dual distinctions such as “West versus Orient”, “civilised versus primitive”, and “modern versus traditional”. Said argues that such dichotomies conceal asymmetrical power relations and make colonial hierarchies appear legitimate.

Applying contrapuntal reading to methodological Orientalism and Eurocentrism means challenging hegemonic narratives, Eurocentric knowledge systems, and Western-defined historical continuities. According to Said, it is essential to bring marginalised voices into focus in order to counter one-sided, generalising, and exoticising images.

An essential aspect that seems relevant to the present discussion is the visualisation and analysis of hegemonic power relations and the resistance of the marginalised. Counterpoint reading offers a methodological framework for recognising the plurality and polyphony of (religious) life plans and contextualising them socially.

4. (Religious) Life Plans and Self-Positioning of Successor Generations

This section uses three biographical case studies to show how members of the successor generations, whose parents or grandparents immigrated to Austria in the 1960s or 1970s, actively deal with negative attributions and experiences of discrimination, position themselves in different ways, tell their own stories, create their own biographies, and develop common perspectives. On the other hand, these examples show how the interviewees reshape their (religious) life plans in this debate by interpreting religious commandments in their own way, contextualising them, linking them with other elements, and putting them into practice. These processes can be described as a kind of “tinkering with religiosity” (see Aslan and Yildiz 2024).

The case studies also show that methodological Orientalism as a “Paradogma” is not just a phenomenon of the past but persists in contemporary discourses about Islam and Muslims, as well as in power structures within institutions and everyday practices.

4.1. Methodological Approach and Methodological Implications

The focus is deliberately placed on Austria, as it serves as a case in which the mechanisms of hegemonic discourses and strategies of self-positioning become particularly evident. The aim is not to represent a pan-European context but rather to achieve analytical depth within a specific field.

In order to reconstruct the experiences, positions, and life concepts of women with a Muslim background in Austria, interviews were conducted with ten individuals in Tyrol and Carinthia over the past two years. To ensure a certain openness, the interviews were conducted in a semi-narrative manner: they began with an open-ended introductory question, followed by a phase of free narration. Additional questions were asked depending on the situation. The interviews were recorded and then transcribed. The selection of interviewees was based partly on personal contacts, partly on chance, and partly on recommendations from people who had already been interviewed.

We were particularly interested in how the young women interviewed position themselves, what perspectives they develop, and what strategies they use to cope with discrimination and negative attributions. As a detailed analysis of all interviews would go beyond the scope of this study, three case studies were selected for comparative analysis, as they seemed appropriate due to their similarities and differences in terms of coping strategies. The analysis was based on Glaser and Strauss’s (2005) grounded theory approach and Kaufmann’s (1999) concept of the interpretive interview.

The focus of the analysis is both on the management of public attributions and on women’s practices that emerge from these confrontations. These two perspectives are linked and form the argumentative starting point of this study.

Research is not a neutral endeavour but a reflexive situation, a discursive practice in which both respondents and researchers actively participate. At every stage of the research process—from developing theoretical concepts to conducting interviews and interpreting data—researchers’ perceptions play a crucial role. Perception is not a passive activity but an active intervention in the research object.

The semi-narrative interviews were designed to gain insight into the biographical constructions and life concepts of the interviewees. As a matter of principle, we assumed a diversity of perspectives, which can vary according to context, individual experience, and discursive framework and sometimes reveal contradictory points of view.

SEMRA—“I don’t ask you every day why you wear this T-shirt. Leave it alone”

Semra is a 21-year-old woman who grew up in a large family with several siblings in Vorarlberg, Austria. Her family, especially her sister, who studied medicine, had a strong influence on her life choices. Semra describes herself as a committed Muslim who wears a headscarf. Her religious upbringing still shapes her orientation and self-image today. At the same time, she emphasises her focus on education and her desire to make a positive contribution to society.

Her varied academic career, marked by several changes of subject, eventually led her to education and psychotherapy. Semra faced challenges during her time at school, especially as a “Muslim” student. However, she also reports positive experiences, such as the support she received from a class representative after a discriminatory situation in physical education. This support “really cheered [her] up”. She also found Islamic Religious Education a valuable, safe space to share ideas and prepare for her A-levels. She found an ethical discussion about the headscarf enriching.

“You don’t belong here”—Experiences of discrimination

Semra recalls a particularly formative experience when a teacher asked her to take off her headscarf if she wanted to continue in physical education: “Then he pointed at me and said: ‘You there, either you take it off now or you sit on the side and don’t participate anymore’.”

Another issue she raises is the lack of representation of Muslim names or figures in school materials, which made her feel excluded:

“You never found yourself. It was a shame because then you knew you didn’t belong here”.

Although she also received support from classmates and understanding from individual teachers, the stressful experiences of discrimination and stereotyping had a lasting impact on her (religious) outlook on life and how she dealt with challenges at school.

“ … I also feel strong because I can defend myself”—Counterstrategies

Semra has developed various strategies to deal with discrimination and prejudice, particularly in relation to her religion and the wearing of a headscarf. She uses a mixture of defensive self-assertion and clear confrontation.

For example, she responded to the provocation of a teacher who repeatedly asked her why she wore a headscarf with a confident counterattack: “I told him, ‘I don’t ask you every day why you wear that T-shirt. Leave it alone.’”

Semra has learnt not to let negative comments and prejudices get to her. In discussions, especially with teachers, she sees herself as strong and able to defend her position: “Of course I feel attacked when something is thrown at me on the bus. But when I’m in a discussion with a teacher, I also feel strong because I can defend myself.”

Semra’s experiences illustrate the reproduction of methodological Orientalism within the school context and reveal how religious identity becomes a projection surface for hegemonic ascriptions. Her responses can be read contrapuntally as practices of resistance that challenge dominant discourses.

GÜLÜ—“Why should I be bothered if someone next to me or a colleague at work or something wears a headscarf?”

Gülü describes herself as having grown up in Austria with a religious upbringing. Her mother, who always wore a headscarf and prayed regularly, had a strong influence on her religious practice. She emphasises that she was raised religiously from an early age, learning the basic prayers, suras, and other religious practices in the mosque, which she still carries with her today.

During her time at school, she experienced acceptance and respect for her religious orientation. At the same time, she emphasises that she herself does not wear a headscarf, but it is important to recognise different forms of religious expression.

“It would bother me if I was discriminated against or treated badly in any way because of my headscarf”—Experiences of discrimination

Gülü herself has not experienced any discrimination but feels concerned by reports of other Muslim women being discriminated against because of their headscarves. She feels that such situations are unfair: “Such things bother me because I have to say that you have to accept whatever religion you practise”.

Gülü finds the one-sided media portrayal of Islam, which is often reduced to issues such as the headscarf or polygamous marriages, particularly disturbing. She reflects that it is difficult for her to deal with potential discrimination, as she has not experienced it herself. Nevertheless, she takes a clear stance against injustice: “If someone were to discriminate against me now, of course I would deal with it differently. […] But I haven’t really had to do anything yet”.

Gülü talks mainly about positive experiences with her religious identity, especially in the family context and at school. Her negative experiences mainly relate to perceived discrimination, “intercultural” misunderstandings, and the negative perception of Islam in the media. She emphasises that a person’s appearance, such as wearing a headscarf, is not linked to their character.

“If someone were to discriminate against me now, of course I would deal with it differently”—Counterstrategies

Gülü has clear positions against prejudice, especially in relation to the wearing of religious symbols such as the headscarf. Although she has not personally experienced discrimination, she stresses that she would develop strategies to respond to injustice: “If someone were to discriminate against me now, of course I would deal with it differently”.

She takes a clear stance against discrimination and calls for respect and acceptance of different forms of religious expression and strongly rejects discrimination of any kind. It is particularly important to her that religious symbols such as the headscarf should not be used as a basis for prejudice or unfair treatment: “Why should I mind if someone next to me or a colleague at work or something wears a headscarf? It has nothing to do with the person or their character, but only with their faith and their appearance”.

Gülü’s stance demonstrates that discrimination remains a structural possibility even in seemingly conflict-free contexts. Her statements point to subtle forms of othering that are reflected in public discourses.

SHERMIN—“I always hit ‘like’ then, but everything else, where people become more radical or talk rubbish, I don’t like that at all”

Shermin is 26 years old and was born and raised in Carinthia, Austria. Her parents moved to Austria from Turkey 30 years ago. At the time of the interview, she was studying in Klagenfurt after completing her bachelor’s degree in Graz and working at a social organisation. While her mother is a believer and practitioner, her father is hardly religiously active. Shermin describes herself as a believer, although she used to be more active in her religious practice. This has changed over the years due to her studies and daily commitments.

“The media keeps generalising that all Muslims are terrorists”—Experiences of discrimination

During her time at school, Shermin was actively involved in discussions with teachers to address misconceptions about Islam, particularly on issues such as “jihad”. Her discussions often led to teachers reflecting on and correcting their views. A particularly successful initiative was the organisation of an “Open Mosque Day” in Wolfsberg, which was very well received in 2016. More than 100 non-Muslims visited the mosque and were pleasantly surprised by the normality and openness of the Muslim community.

However, Shermin also reports experiences of indirect discrimination, which she experienced through her cousin and her cousin’s friend, who wear headscarves. They were often verbally attacked and ridiculed at school and in everyday life: “The teachers kept saying, ‘You don’t have to, tell us if you feel oppressed. They were still talking about the fact that there were two girls who were forced to wear it.”

Shermin also criticises the negative portrayal of Islam in the media, which she says reinforces existing prejudices and stigmatises Muslims: “The media keeps generalising that all Muslims are terrorists. This makes me very sad”.

“I may be able to change the minds of two or three people. But I can’t reach that many people”—Counterstrategies

Over the years, Shermin has developed several strategies to counter discrimination and prejudice against Islam and Muslims. One key initiative was the “Open Mosque Day”, where she specifically promoted encounters between Muslims and non-Muslims. The positive feedback from participants reinforced her belief that face-to-face encounters are an effective way of breaking down prejudice.

Shermin used to respond directly and emotionally to hate comments on social media. Over time, however, she realised that such reactions caused her more distress than they achieved. Today, she avoids such discussions or deletes such comments to protect herself. She only continues to actively engage in face-to-face conversations where she feels she can make a difference, even if she is somewhat pessimistic about the reach of her engagement: “But the media has a much wider reach. I might be able to change the minds of two or three people. But I can’t reach that many people. That’s the problem.”

Her attitude towards discrimination is a mixture of active education and emotional distance. Shermin has learnt to channel her energy in a way that strengthens her position without becoming a burden.

Shermin’s engagement can be understood as a conscious disruption of hegemonic narratives. Her biographical positioning seeks to foster visibility, dialogue, and a redefinition of Muslim representation.

4.2. Comparative Analysis

All three women see their religious orientation as an essential part of their identity. While Gülü differs in that she does not wear a headscarf, she, like Semra and Shermin, was strongly influenced by a religious upbringing. Another similarity is that each of the women has been confronted, directly or indirectly, with discrimination or stereotypes. In their interviews, Semra and Shermin talk about specific situations in which they or people close to them were attacked or excluded. Gülü, on the other hand, has not personally experienced discrimination but feels affected by the experiences of others. All three women have developed strategies to deal with negative experiences. Active dialogue (for Shermin and Semra) and maintaining an attitude of respect and acceptance (for Gülü) play a central role (see

Table 1. Comparative analysis.

	Aspect	Semra	Gülü	Shermin
1	Religious background	Strongly religiously influenced by family	Religiously influenced by mother	Religious mother, self-believing, little practicing
2	Headscarf	Wears a headscarf	Does not wear a headscarf	Wears a headscarf
3	Experience of discrimination	Direct discrimination in the school context	Sensitive to discrimination against others	Indirect discrimination via family
4	Reactions to discrimination	Confrontational, quick-witted, humorous, conciliatory	Respectful, conflict-averse	Dialogue-oriented, pedagogically committed
5	Attitude towards media coverage	Indirect criticism through personal experience	Critical towards stereotypes	Active Media criticism
6	Engagement	Individual through self-assertion	Reflected, no direct action	Intercultural projects, public relations
7	Self-perception	Self-confident Muslim woman with a focus on education	Accepting attitude with a focus on diversity	Mediator between religions
8	Characteristic self-positioning	Self-assertive	Conciliatory	Dialogue-oriented

).

Three key differences can be identified as follows:

• Personal experience and direct impact: Semra experienced direct discrimination at school, for example, from a teacher who asked her to remove her headscarf. This experience shaped her sense of non-belonging and led to strong assertiveness. Shermin faced discrimination both through direct confrontation and general media portrayals of Islam. She has responded actively, for example, by organising intercultural events such as the Open Mosque Day. Gülü herself has not experienced direct discrimination but expresses empathy for Muslim women who face prejudice. Her attitude is reflective, emphasising the respect and recognition of religious diversity.
• Coping with discrimination: Semra responds confrontationally and confidently, using humour and wit. Shermin consciously engages in educational and personal dialogue, participates in public initiatives, and tries to counter prejudices through direct discussion. Gülü avoids direct confrontation and instead emphasises the importance of the respect and acceptance of different religious expressions.
• Orientation on the headscarf: Semra and Shermin wear headscarves and therefore experience more prejudice and discrimination. Gülü does not wear a headscarf but still feels the impact of prejudice as she often witnesses discrimination against other Muslim women.

Although all three women live in a society characterised by stereotypes and discrimination, their personal experiences and coping strategies are very different. While Semra and Shermin actively resist discrimination, Gülü takes a more reflective and conciliatory approach. These differences highlight the complexity of individual identity constructions and illustrate that there is no single “Muslim woman” but rather individual, context-specific, and dynamic self-understandings shaped at the intersection of religion, gender, origin, education, and societal power relations.

Kimberlé Crenshaw’s (1989) concept of intersectionality provides a central theoretical framework for understanding the experiences of Semra, Gülü, and Shermin. Semra’s accounts of discrimination in physical education, in particular, highlight how religious affiliation, gender, and ethnocultural background intersect. The idea of “not being found” in teaching materials or explicit exclusion from class illustrate how structural and symbolic violence (Bourdieu 1982) become manifest. Shermin’s account of how her headscarf-wearing cousin is perceived by others also points to the persistent externalisation of Muslim femininity.

Despite these experiences, the protagonists do not appear as passive victims but rather as active subjects. Judith Butler’s (1997) theory of performativity helps to interpret Semra’s confrontational response to discriminatory questions as an act of linguistic self-empowerment. Her headscarf becomes a symbol of a self-determined biography, rather than a marker of oppression. Saba Mahmood (2005) likewise argues that religious practice need not contradict female agency. In fact, Semra’s and Shermin’s actions reveal a religiously grounded capacity to act that challenges the dominant notions of “emancipation.”

Both Shermin and Gülü express criticism of the media’s representation of Islam. Shermin’s statement that “the media keep generalizing that all Muslims are terrorists” points to the persistent power of Orientalist discourses (Said [1978] 2014). Fatima El-Tayeb (2016) describes such representations as part of a hegemonic system that constructs Muslim individuals as “non-European.” The experiences of the three women demonstrate how such media imagery can influence and reinforce social realities.

The transformative potential of these lived realities becomes the most apparent through the concept of rhizomatic subjectivity (Deleuze and Guattari 1976). Rather than conceiving of biographies as linear, coherent, or completed, the life trajectories of these three women show that subjectivities unfold in a processual, interconnected, and dynamic manner. Semra’s confrontation, Gülü’s empathy, and Shermin’s dialogic engagement are not contradictory but complementary expressions of rhizomatic existence. Their life projects are not merely responses to discrimination but also articulations of a multilayered and creative appropriation of belonging.

The self-positionings of Semra, Gülü, and Shermin highlight the need to think about Muslim life narratives beyond monolithic representations. Their experiences can be understood—through the lenses of intersectional, performative, and rhizomatic theory—as complex negotiations of belonging, resistance, and social participation. Muslim women in Europe do not form a homogeneous group but are agents within a plural society whose voices, strategies, and subjectivities deserve recognition.

The different modes of subjectivation are not the result of a linear development from “not integrated” to “integrated” but rather expressions of multiple, dynamic, and context-dependent (religious) self-positionings.

This perspective is closely linked to Said’s contrapuntal approach, as outlined in the theoretical section of this study. To think contrapuntally means not to conceive of society as a homogeneous order disrupted by “migration” or “Islam” but as a historically shaped constellation formed through migrations and religions—one in which belonging is always contested, conflictual, and in motion.

5. Conclusions: From Experiences of Discrimination to a Culture of Conviviality

The case studies analysed in this contribution clearly demonstrate that Muslim women of the post-migrant generation do not merely position themselves reactively in relation to hegemonic ascriptions. Rather, through conscious, creative, and resistant practices, they develop new forms of religious self-location. These subjectivations do not occur in a norm-free space but within the field of tension shaped by structural power relations—most notably those described by methodological Orientalism, which is an epistemic framework that constructs Muslim subjects as deficient, homogeneous, and backward and classifies them along a binary order (Western-modern vs. Eastern-traditionalist).

The experiences and practices documented in the interviews can thus be read as active engagements with such a hegemonic knowledge system. The women subvert these ascriptions by shaping and articulating their religious identities in self-determined ways. What becomes evident is that subjectivity here is not the product of integration or acculturation but rather an expression of a rhizomatic mode of living—complex, layered, and context-dependent (cf. Deleuze and Guattari 1976).

This perspective is deliberately taken up within this study through a contrapuntal reading inspired by Edward Said. The women’s life narratives are not understood as deviations from a norm but as equally valid, plural voices within a polyphonic social fabric. To read contrapuntally means to decentre dominant narratives and to acknowledge marginalised perspectives as legitimate sources of knowledge. The self-positionings articulated by the interviewees can thus be understood as concrete expressions of such a contrapuntal epistemology. They make the tension between hegemonic discourses and lived experience productive and shift the perspective from representation to articulation.

Taken together, methodological Orientalism and the contrapuntal perspective illustrate that processes of subjectivation do not follow a linear trajectory but are always negotiated in relation to prevailing social interpretive frameworks. The women portrayed here act as proactive agents—their narratives challenge the objectification of Muslim femininity and open up new, autonomous readings of Muslim life realities in Europe.

These biographical voices thus lay the foundation for a culture of conviviality in the sense of Paul Gilroy (2004) and Ivan Illich (2014)—a form of social coexistence based not on assimilation or fixed difference but on recognition, conflict capability, and mutual visibility. In this context, religiosity is not seen as a problem or deviation but as a resource for empowerment and social participation.

Research that engages with these dynamics must move beyond objectifying and culturalising approaches and instead create space for contrapuntal thinking. This contribution understands itself as a step in that direction: it shows that Muslim women in Austria are neither silent objects of integration discourses nor homogeneous representatives of an “other culture” but plural subjects—active, critical, and convivial.