Why Does Classification Matter?

If one asks why studying religion matters, one is increasingly likely to hear the response that studying religion matters because classification matters. But what does this mean? The importance of classification is one mainly of consequence – a consequence which derives from the fact that the act of classification is not neutral. For some, this point may seem counterintuitive - this is especially the case if one’s understanding of classification is primarily based on how classification supposedly works in the natural sciences, which seems to be an impeccable objective discipline. However, a closer look demonstrates the act of classification to be subjective, context-dependent and ideological.

To illustrate the point that classification is not value-free, we can look at the Seinfeld – 90s sitcom – episode, ‘The Soup’. In the episode, Kenny Bania, a character who throughout the show wishes to be friends with Jerry Seinfeld, who does not harbour similar ambitions, offers Jerry a new Armani suit. It seems, at first, that there are no strings attached. But, when Jerry accepts the suit, Kenny says he would like Jerry to take him out to a meal. Jerry reluctantly accepts. Later in the show, Kenny and Jerry are sat down for dinner in a restaurant. Kenny, however, only orders soup. Kenny then goes on to claim that soup does not count as a meal, and so Jerry has not fulfilled his social obligation and will have to take him out again. Jerry is annoyed by this and later discusses the situation with his friend Elaine. The following dialogue then takes place:

Jerry: So he just gets soup. He wants to save the meal. So now I got to do it all over again.
Elaine: What kind of soup did he get?
Jerry: I don't know? Consomme or something.
Elaine: Consomm, hmm.
Jerry: What?
Elaine: Well, that's not really a meal, Jerry. I mean if he had gotten Chicken Gumbo, or Matzah Ball, or Mushroom Barley. Then I would agree with you. Those are very hardy soups.
Jerry: Elaine you're missing the whole point.
Elaine: What?
Jerry: The meal is the act of sitting down with him. It doesn't matter what you get, as long as he's sitting in that restaurant, its a meal.
Elaine: Was it a cup or a bowl?
Jerry: You see -- ah, uh ...
Elaine: I’m just curious.
Jerry: A bowl, ok?
Elaine: Did he crumble any crackers in it?
(Jerry blows out a breath)
Elaine: (reiterating the question) Did he crumble any crackers in it?
Jerry: As a matter of fact, he did.
Elaine: Oh, well. Crackers in a bowl. That -- That could be a meal.

We could take a realist approach to understand this controversy. That is, we could assume that the word ‘meal’ points to some objective reality that possesses essential characteristics which enable us to classify some phenomena as a meal. However, it should be evident that taking such an interpretative approach would not get to the core issue. The point is not whether the act of eating took place in a building classified as a restaurant or whether a soup is only a meal with the combination of crackers. No, the point is that Kenny wishes to be Jerry’s friend, and by exploiting the ambiguous semantic boundaries around the word ‘meal’, combined with reference to social obligations, he can bring about another opportunity to sit down with Jerry and, therefore, another chance to befriend Jerry. In other words, by taking a constructivist approach – assuming the word meal was constructed within a historical, cultural and geographical context which is then put to strategic uses in the act of classification– one can better understand the significance of what is happening; one can better understand why classification matters.

Admitedly, though, the significance of the Seinfeld example is not high, and seems, on the surface, unrelated to 'religion' discourses. But the methodological principles which this example illustrates can allow us to analyse, critically, other cases which are of more considerable significance. Take, for instance, David Cameron’s establishment of the Extremism Task Force during the coalition government. As Cameron (2019) states, when describing the measures of the task force in his book For the Record:

A number of measures were proposed by the task force when it reported at the end of 2013. One bold move was to agree a definition of Islamist extremism. Were you an extremist if you said women were inferior to man? Or did you have to promote violence against women? What about believing in loyalty to the Ummah over your own nation state? Or saying that, while terrorism is wrong, the terrorists do have a point? (424)

Like Jerry and Elaine when discussing what constitutes a meal, members of Cameron’s cabinet were split over the issue of classification - in this instance, the classification of Islamist extremism. Theresa May wanted a narrow definition due to free speech concerns; conversely, Michael Gove wanted a broad definition ‘that included anyone at odds with British values’ (424). In the end, the task force ‘summed up Islamist extremism as an ideology which seeks to impose a global Islamic state based on Sharia law, rejecting liberal democracy, the rule of law and equality and is distinct from the faith of Islam’ (425). However, the point, again, is not whether this definition is correct in a realist sense – that it is right because it hooks up to the objective phenomena ‘Islamist extremism’ which, somehow, exists outside of semantic construction. Instead, the point is about asking why these semantic boundaries are being drawn in the way they are. Just like Kenny had a motive behind his definition of a meal, what reason lies behind this definition of Islamist extremism? Moreover, the point is also about critically looking at the in-practice implementation of such definitions. The task force suggested that Islamist extremism includes the rejection of ‘the rule of law and equality.’ As Boris Johnson is against both, should he be classified as an Islamist extremist? If not, why not?

Now, there are other issues, questions and points which can be made about Cameron’s task force and the role classification played in it – not least the manifestation of its logic in the Prevent programme. Though hopefully now not only the constructivist character of classification has been made clear, but the significance of it also; the logic of the task force led to policy decisions implemented by the central government which have affected people in very real ways - see, for example, the case of Lyn Jenkins who was referred to the anti-terrorist Prevent programme by his local NHS trust for attending a non-violent protest against the climate crisis organised by Extinction Rebellion. This example shows that the logic of Cameron's task force went beyond its original stated goals, and is now also being used to shut down debate over the climate crisis which the Conservative government has a terrible record in tackling. Again, the point is that classification is not neutral; instead, it is always political. This, then, is  why ‘classification matters.'

Jack Lewis Graham